Making peace with femininity

[divine focus]

If two sets of conditions undetectable to humans result in two different outcomes that are detectable, what determines which set of conditions occur? Apply this to your own experience.

Okay, on one evening, I leave my dinner on the coffee table while I go to answer the phone. I return 3 minutes later, and eat my dinner. On another evening, I leave an identical dinner on the same coffee table with the house in an identical condition for 3 minutes while I go answer the phone. This time the outcome is different - my dinner is missing. I can not detect for sure that on the second occasion the dog ate my dinner (although I can piece together evidence and assume this is the case). I can not detect if the dog was sleeping more soundly on the first occasion, or had a different level of hunger - but I know that the sets of circumstances that were undetectable to me were different. It was only the sets of circumstances that were detectable to me that were identical. The outcome of 2 sets of circumstances that were identical to my perception were detectably different. The detectably different outcomes leads me to reasonably assume that there was something different about the circumstances that was not detectable to me, as evidenced by the different outcomes.

Doesn't your brain hurt? :)

Yes, the difference in circumstances was undetected, but that doesn't mean it was undetectable. Something would have "told" you to take appropriate measures to safeguard your food, if you were noticing. Not recognizing the impression is fine, but now that you've had the experience, you may be more inclined to do so the next time.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

It was undetectable at the time because I did not have cameras set up to observe that it was in fact the dog that ate my dinner. It is possible that a black hole opened up over my dinner plate and wiped it clean. Unlikely, but possible. It is possible that a thief sneaked in and at my dinner. More likely than the black hole theory, but less likely than the dog. The same thing could have happened to anyone before cameras were invented (although the 3 minutes would likely be to answer the door rather than the phone).

That it was undetectable does not mean that it would never be detectable. Similarly, a time could come when there is nothing that is undetectable to humans. At that point, science will have no further need for philosophers.

And yeah, I have figured out that the dog is not as well trained to leave my food alone as I thought she was. But if in fact it was a black hole, said measures would not work. On the quantum level of causality, it is far less easily deductible what might cause one outcome one time and another outcome another time. That does not mean that it never will be, only that it is at the moment.

[David Quinn]

David,

You did say that it means "Nature is God", which is a conceptual understanding.

I meant that it serves the same function, not that it has the same meaning. To clarify, both statements have the same level of meaningful content - none. To say "mu" and to say "Nature is God" are equivalent statements in this sense because both say nothing meaningful.

That is entirely your creation. You have chosen to strip all words of their meaning. It is your own fantasy world of the imagination, most likely devised as a way of trying to cope with the terrifying death-trap which is Nature.

But that's not the end of it. You then proceed to insert this fantasy into a conceptual framework involving Taoism. If a word such as "mu" was indeed completely without meaning, then it would be completely useless, even for someone of your intentions. The only way it can gain usefulness and meaning is by linking it conceptually to something else - in your case, Taoism. The fact that this is supposed to be utterly forbidden in your scheme of things seems to be forgotten.

Again, you are wanting it both ways. You are wanting your philosophy to be meaningful, at least to yourself, and yet to make this happen you have to engage in the very thing that you rail against. It's comical, really.

I can only go by the words you write, but it makes it hard when you are chopping and changing your views with every single post.

I'm not doing any such thing. Your apparent refusal to actually look at what I'm saying is what is causing that perception. Had you been paying attention to my other 4 million posts on this whole "mu" topic, it would have been immediately apparent what I was getting at.

In that case, you obviously don't realize that you are constantly chopping and changing. Sometimes it is very blatant, such as when you flat-out denied that you espoused the view that Taosim is all about trying to cope in the face of Nature's terrors. At other times, it is more subtle, but there nonetheless.

In the case of "mu", I think it's more the case that you haven't really thought out the issue properly, and you have come to rely on winging it and evasive manouvering to avoid facing the matter squarely. You can get away with it most times because most people are just as befuddled by these issues as you are. It's become a comfortable method of coping for you with little chance of being found out.

Who is he [Nietzsche] talking about, I wonder? He is certainly not referring to wise folk.

Indeed, he's obviously not referring to wise folk who avoid grandiose conceptual schemes to conquer Nature intellectually and remake the essence of it in their own image.

Rather, he's referring to people like you, who do such things.

The trouble is, I couldn't be further removed from such things. Just because I reject your naive strip-words-of-all-meaning philosophy doesn't mean that I am involved in grand conceptual schemes or trying to reshape Nature in my image. I'll say it again, you are entirely clueless about what I do, and what this forum is about.

-

[David Quinn]

[Who is he talking about, I wonder? He is certainly not referring to wise folk.

-

Meh,Fred saw everyone as unwise over some point.Not least of all Jeebus.

I'm sure you've read the 'anti-christ'.Not the authentic Nieztsche?

He railed against the normal conceptions of Christ, as propagated by Christians. He actually had a lot of respect for Jesus, the individual. He once remarked, "There has only been one Christian, and he was nailed on the cross."

Fred prided himself as an iconoclast and loved to tear things down, but it was always done in the spirit of wisdom.

-

[sue hindmarsh]

Laird wrote:

Sue to Laird: you write of things being “essentially separated” - but this remains a meaningless concept unless you put it into context...and show how these things being “essentially separate” “react, respond and communicate” with one another. This way you'll be able to show how your idea is the timeless and never changing basis of all existence.

Let me explain using the example of a cupboard then. Let's assume that the cupboard is primarily made of wood. Wood is a material with an entirely different chemical nature than the air and carpet against which the cupboard rests, so it's fair to say that the cupboard is essentially a separate thing. We might quibble as to whether, when the door is closed, the cupboard comprises also of the empty space (air) inside, but this is a minor distraction: the way in which we conceptualise a thing is in some sense open, but it's not completely arbitrary. For our purposes let's define that the air inside the cupboard is not in fact a part of the cupboard (in keeping with our notion that it is primarily the different chemical composition of the wood that determines the separateness of the cupboard).

Now all things can be broken down further, possibly without limit or possibly into an ultimate quanta - I don't know the science well enough and I'm not even sure that science has a final answer on this question anyhow. So let's examine more closely: the cupboard has doors attached with metal hinges. Again, the metal hinges are of an entirely different chemical nature than the wooden doors, so we can easily describe both the doors and the hinges as separate things. The hinges allow the doors to swing upon and shut; the doors will stop moving inwards once they are fully shut and won't swing open more than the limit imposed by the hinges: in this way we can say that the doors react and respond to force in the broader context of the cupboard and that the hinges "communicate" the limits of their behaviour to the doors.

So whilst there is some scope for defining boundaries (is the air inside the cupboard a part of it or not?), mostly it is chemical composition or phase (gas, liquid, solid) that points us to the essential things, which can in turn be broken down as far as is useful to us - grains in the wood; chemical compounds; atoms; etc.

Thanks for your answer, I now better see where you are coming from.

You've worked at reducing things down; which is a start. Another question though - you mentioned the wood that the cupboard is made out of - do you think that the “cupboard” existed in the wood of the tree before it was cut down, and the planks used for the cupboard’s construction?

This isn’t a trick question. It is a serious one that goes to the core of this matter.

[RobertGreenSky]

David,

You did say that it means "Nature is God", which is a conceptual understanding.

I meant that it serves the same function, not that it has the same meaning. To clarify, both statements have the same level of meaningful content - none. To say "mu" and to say "Nature is God" are equivalent statements in this sense because both say nothing meaningful.

That is entirely your creation. You have chosen to strip all words of their meaning. It is your own fantasy world of the imagination, most likely devised as a way of trying to cope with the terrifying death-trap which is Nature.

But that's not the end of it. You then proceed to insert this fantasy into a conceptual framework involving Taoism. If a word such as "mu" was indeed completely without meaning, then it would be completely useless, even for someone of your intentions. The only way it can gain usefulness and meaning is by linking it conceptually to something else - in your case, Taoism. The fact that this is supposed to be utterly forbidden in your scheme of things seems to be forgotten.

Again, you are wanting it both ways. You are wanting your philosophy to be meaningful, at least to yourself, and yet to make this happen you have to engage in the very thing that you rail against. It's comical, really.

I can only go by the words you write, but it makes it hard when you are chopping and changing your views with every single post.

I'm not doing any such thing. Your apparent refusal to actually look at what I'm saying is what is causing that perception. Had you been paying attention to my other 4 million posts on this whole "mu" topic, it would have been immediately apparent what I was getting at.

In that case, you obviously don't realize that you are constantly chopping and changing. Sometimes it is very blatant, such as when you flat-out denied that you espoused the view that Taosim is all about trying to cope in the face of Nature's terrors. At other times, it is more subtle, but there nonetheless.

In the case of "mu", I think it's more the case that you haven't really thought out the issue properly, and you have come to rely on winging it and evasive manouvering to avoid facing the matter squarely. You can get away with it most times because most people are just as befuddled by these issues as you are. It's become a comfortable method of coping for you with little chance of being found out.

... you are entirely clueless about what I do, and what this forum is about.
-

David,

I think Unidian knows very well what you do and what this forum is about. I think he can see in your fundamental misunderstanding of 'mu' your misunderstandings of Daoism, Zen, and Buddhism and their significant teachers. If you understood Nagarjuna you would not insist that 'mu' must be tied to a concept.

"Buddha, according to a sutra, once said: 'Stop, stop. Do not speak. The ultimate truth is not even to think.'"

Amban's comment: Where did that so-called teaching come from? How is it that one could not even think it? Suppose someone spoke about it then what became of it? Buddha himself was a great chatterbox and in this sutra spoke contrarily. Because of this, persons like Mu-mon appear afterwards in China and make useless doughnuts, annoying people. What shall we do after all? I will show you.

Then Amban put his palms together, folded his hands, and said, "Stop, stop. Do not speak. The ultimate truth is not even to think. And now I will make a little circle on the sutra with my finger and add that five thousand other sutras and Vimalakirti's gateless gate all are here!"

If anyone tells you fire is light,
Pay no attention.
When two thieves meet they need no introduction:
They recognize each other without question.

- from 'Amban's Addition' to the Mumonkan.

Amban recognized Mu-mon who recognized Hui-neng who recognized Bodhidharma who recognized Nagarjuna who recognized the Buddha. You, Quinn, are the someone telling others fire is light while they told others, 'Stop, stop. Do not speak,' 'don't know', and '"empty" is an empty word'. Because 'empty' is an empty word 'mu' is tied to no concept.

_____

A monk once asked master Chao-chou, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?"

Chao-chou said, "Mu"

Quinn chimed in, "Mu" must be tied to a concept!, but which would have defeated the purpose of the answer, and for which Quinn's ears were soundly boxed. No, in his picture he looks too sensitive a soul for that ...
_____

Google joshu's dog and found out what is 'mu' if you haven't already. From the discussion in the returns you will likely see that "Mu" must be tied to a concept! is wrong. All the discussion we will ever have about 'mu' is second-hand, but 'mu' first-hand is beyond thinking ...

[David Quinn]

David,

I think Unidian knows very well what you do and what this forum is about. I think he can see in your fundamental misunderstanding of 'mu' your misunderstandings of Daoism, Zen, and Buddhism and their significant teachers. If you understood Nagarjuna you would not insist that 'mu' must be tied to a concept.

It does if it is to have any meaning. If you look at the Zen anecdotes which feature "mu", you'll find that the word is always employed in a conceptual context - for example, as a response to a student's enquiry. For example:

A monk once asked master Chao-chou, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?"

Chao-chou said, "Mu"

Here, Chao-chou is imparting information which has relevance to the monk's enquiry and conceptual framework. That is, he is creating conceptual meaning for word "mu", one that is designed to stimulate the monk's mind out of his dualistic mindset. It is an intelligent device used for the purpose of provoking a break-through realization into Truth.

Without this conceptual activity on the part of Chao-chou, his utterance of "mu" would be completely meaningless. It would be indistingishable from a noise emitted randomly and unconsciously.

"Buddha, according to a sutra, once said: 'Stop, stop. Do not speak. The ultimate truth is not even to think.'"

Amban's comment: Where did that so-called teaching come from? How is it that one could not even think it? Suppose someone spoke about it then what became of it? Buddha himself was a great chatterbox and in this sutra spoke contrarily. Because of this, persons like Mu-mon appear afterwards in China and make useless doughnuts, annoying people. What shall we do after all? I will show you.

Then Amban put his palms together, folded his hands, and said, "Stop, stop. Do not speak. The ultimate truth is not even to think. And now I will make a little circle on the sutra with my finger and add that five thousand other sutras and Vimalakirti's gateless gate all are here!"

If anyone tells you fire is light,
Pay no attention.
When two thieves meet they need no introduction:
They recognize each other without question.

- from 'Amban's Addition' to the Mumonkan.

Amban recognized Mu-mon who recognized Hui-neng who recognized Bodhidharma who recognized Nagarjuna who recognized the Buddha. You, Quinn, are the someone telling others fire is light while they told others, 'Stop, stop. Do not speak,' 'don't know', and '"empty" is an empty word'. Because 'empty' is an empty word 'mu' is tied to no concept.

Just in this instance alone you are tying the word "mu" to a concept - namely, the concept of the absence of concepts. There is no way around this. As long as we are conscious, it is impossible to escape linking conceptual meaning to the words we meaningfully use. It is the way the conscious mind works.

The above sutra-line and comment has a very profound meaning and has nothing to do with the superficial "strip-words-of-all-meaning and stop-having-thoughts" philosophy that you are trying to espouse. The very fact that Abman mentioned that the Buddha was a chatterbox and spoke contrarily in that sutra is testiment to this. And just look at the way Mumon and Abman chattered away too. Abman was indicating very clearly that the superficial view that enlightenment involves putting an end to thoughts altogether is not the right one.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Robert,

It is my current understanding that Nagarjuna attempted to impart wisdom unto others, and it was for that purpose he used such words as "mu" - which I guess equates to "toilet brush" or "sticky buns." When Nat and Philo used such words on me a year or so ago, no such wisdom was imparted in the use. As a relative newcomer to various philosophies, I did not have a reference point for these words. As a result, when they were used on me - especially sequentially and repeatedly by both, the only result was that I regarded it as something similar to children doing schoolyard taunting. I suspect that Nagarjuna would not have used such things on people whose response would have been to regard it as nothing more than childish taunting.

Nat's philosophy of the toilet brush needs to be flushed.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

There's a good case to be made that 'mu' or other similar terms just contain the quite specific meaning that the question cannot be answered because the question itself is being born out of incorrect assumptions. And by shorten it to one word the usual sharp Zen style is maintained.

In case of the dog having Buddha-nature or not, it's just like asking if apples are sinful or not. The question is wrong on so many levels that one needs a bang for the head or one could just say anything random that would hint at how invalid the question is at least.

It doesn't mean Buddha-nature cannot be discussed meaningfully, or dogs, or sin.

[Ataraxia]

Just in this instance alone you are tying the word "mu" to a concept - namely, the concept of the absence of concepts.

-

The same can be said for "pointing at the moon";no?

Seems to me "Mu"' can be a 'pointer',or a concept.Both you and Robert the Sky are correct,or either.

[Laird]

Another question though - you mentioned the wood that the cupboard is made out of - do you think that the “cupboard” existed in the wood of the tree before it was cut down, and the planks used for the cupboard’s construction?

This isn’t a trick question. It is a serious one that goes to the core of this matter.

Well it's a bit like presenting me with a kit to make a model aeroplane and asking me "Is this a model aeroplane?" My answer in that case would be something like "Not yet, but it has the potential to become one." Similarly to your actual question, my response is "No, the cupboard did not exist in the wood of the tree before that tree was cut down, except as a potential."

[RobertGreenSky]

Just in this instance alone you are tying the word "mu" to a concept - namely, the concept of the absence of concepts.

-

The same can be said for "pointing at the moon";no?

Seems to me "Mu"' can be a 'pointer',or a concept.Both you and Robert the Sky are correct,or either.

'The concept of the absence of concepts' is quite correct as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far and where it goes does us no good. The question is, is there somewhere else? Quinn says no, Nagarjuna says yes. Zhuangzi says yes. Not even on his best day can Quinn join them there.

I would explain it all, Ataraxia, but you only gave me a few ever so noncommittal sentences. :)

[RobertGreenSky]

Robert,

It is my current understanding that Nagarjuna attempted to impart wisdom unto others, and it was for that purpose he used such words as "mu" - which I guess equates to "toilet brush" or "sticky buns." When Nat and Philo used such words on me a year or so ago, no such wisdom was imparted in the use. As a relative newcomer to various philosophies, I did not have a reference point for these words. As a result, when they were used on me - especially sequentially and repeatedly by both, the only result was that I regarded it as something similar to children doing schoolyard taunting. I suspect that Nagarjuna would not have used such things on people whose response would have been to regard it as nothing more than childish taunting.

Nat's philosophy of the toilet brush needs to be flushed.

Hey, Elizabeth.

I've seen some references to the 'toilet brush' but I'm not entirely sure what's involved with it, who coined it, what precisely it means, etc.

Your description of the encounter with Nat and Philos suggests it was a very unpleasant one and it's unfortunate when 'good folks' get into it. You're all three friends of mine, people I respect and admire, and so I am very glad I was not in it. However, the use of such words as taunts in no way can negate their usage in Ch'an and Zen.

'Mu' is the Japanese for the Chinese 'wu' and Nagarjuna likely did not use either of them. Nagarjuna wrote about the limitations of thinking and about getting beyond them. His equivalent in Daoism is Zhuangzi, both in terms of their influence - both are widely regarded as the second most important contributors following the Buddha and Laozi - and their meanings. Both of them have had far more influence on me than have either the Buddha or Laozi and perhaps that is what really matters, who can reach us. We must use words because we are thinking and communicating creatures but we generally fail to understand the purpose of words and their limitations. Most of us spend our lives as 'the monkey chattering' and it need not be that way - 'the monkey chattering' is too often a painful thing.

To use a finger to illustrate how "a 'finger' is not a finger" is not as good as using something other than a finger to illustrate how "a 'finger' is not a finger." To use a horse to show how "a 'horse' is not a horse" is not as good as using something other than a horse to show how "a 'horse' is not a horse."

Heaven and earth are one finger, myriad beings are one horse. Approving the appropriate and disapproving the inappropriate, a road is made by travel, things are affirmed by saying so; but how are they so? They are so insofar as they are affirmed. How are they not so? They are not so insofar as they are denied.

Beings inevitably affirm something, so they inevitably approve something. No one does not affirm, so no one does not approve.

For this reason, we may bring up the horizontal and the vertical, the ugly and the beautiful, the enormous, the suspicious, the deceitful, and the strange, and the Way comprehends all as one. When there is division, there is definition, but whatever is defined also disintegrates. Whenever there is no definition or disintegration, all things are again resolved into unity.

Zhuangzi, 2. On Equalizing Things, in The Taoist Classics The Collected Translations of Thomas Cleary, Volume One, p. 59.

What we can think of must disintegrate; it must fail to hold.

The victorious ones have said
That emptiness is the relinquishing of all views.
For whomever emptiness is a view,
That one will accomplish nothing.

- Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, tr. Jay L. Garfield, p. 36.

'Whenever there is no definition or disintegration, all things are again resolved into unity.' '... emptiness is the relinquishing of all views.'

It is a rich subject, Elizabeth. Words like 'mu' and 'wu' point the way and not to any conceptualized meaning which must disintegrate. 'Emptiness is the relinquishing of all views' can be defined to be a view but that misses the point. We are forced to use words after all, but Daoism, Zen, and Buddhism say there really is 'the relinquishing of all views' and which is what the sage or enlightened person comes across. When he has done so he does not then tell you that fire is light. He tells you instead what helped him. He tells you, 'don't know', 'the ultimate truth is not even to think', 'whatever is defined also disintegrates', 'emptiness is the relinquishing of all views', and '"empty" is an empty word'. It is a rich subject but it is not an easy one. Understanding it is not like understanding 'fire is light'. If someone is telling you 'fire is light' pay no attention to him because he is the monkey chattering.

[Ataraxia]

I would explain it all, Ataraxia, but you only gave me a few ever so noncommittal sentences. :)

I find it's best not to make absolute statements,unless I know something absolutely. :)

[RobertGreenSky]

And I just absolutely know I cannot know anything absolutely. :)

I hope you'll continue to contribute, and Elizabeth, and Laird also if he has the interest.

[RobertGreenSky]

The victorious ones have said
That emptiness is the relinquishing of all views.
For whomever emptiness is a view,
That one will accomplish nothing.

- Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, tr. Jay L. Garfield, p. 36.

Just in this instance alone you are tying the word "mu" to a concept - namely, the concept of the absence of concepts.

- David Quinn insisting on making a view of it.

[Laird]

I hope you'll continue to contribute, and Elizabeth, and Laird also if he has the interest.

Well I probably wouldn't have contributed unless you'd invited me, but now that you have, here's my take on things.

It seems highly likely to me that the ultimate origin and nature of reality will ever remain a mystery to me, claims of QRS to ultimate knowledge of these matters notwithstanding. I haven't, however, as Nat claims to have, completely given up hope of one day understanding all. It's entirely possible to me that one day I suddenly remember that I once knew (and now again know) everything, or that I am blessed by divine providence with the unassailable, ultimate answers to life, the universe and everything (alright, so Douglas Adams has already blessed me, but somehow I'm not so inclined to trust the bugger). For that reason I don't promote the state of lack of conceptualisation as the ultimate one, even though as I already wrote it seems likely to me that it is. I do think that it's kind of appropriate though that you guys throw around "Mu" and "sticky buns" and all of that stuff to point to the fact that often questions just don't (as far as we can yet tell) have meaningful answers. I can see where David's coming from: that these pointers are in some sense conceptual, pointing to the concept of meaninglessness, but on the other hand the secondary pointer (the concept) is not the secondarily-pointed-to (lack of concepts).

[David Quinn]

Just in this instance alone you are tying the word "mu" to a concept - namely, the concept of the absence of concepts.

-

The same can be said for "pointing at the moon";no?

Seems to me "Mu"' can be a 'pointer',or a concept.Both you and Robert the Sky are correct,or either.

"Mu" is certainly a pointer. If a person is wise he can use it to point to the highest wisdom, just as he can use "causality", or "non-inherent existence", or any other relevant conception. If he is ignorant, then his pointing will only be confusing and misleading.

Robert and Nat's use of "mu" is confusing because they insist that the very word itself is without meaning. They are confusing the finger for the moon. The pointing finger necessarily has meaning by virtue of the fact that it is pointing to the moon. The very act of pointing creates the meaning. To deny such an obvious reality as this isn't intelligent or healthy. It's very deluded, in fact.

Neither Robert nor Nat have thought through this issue properly and hence they rely heavily on the words of others, such as Lao Tzu and Nagarjuna, to keep propping them up. They also have the sure-fire guarantee of evading any pull towards facing up to their inadequacies in this area by being able to declare all words meaningless at the drop of a hat. As soon as a line of thought from someone else begins to back them into a corner, they have the luxury of obliterating the entire situation by employing this neat little trick.

This isn't wise behaviour by any stretch of the imagination. It's a farce.

-

[David Quinn]

And I just absolutely know I cannot know anything absolutely.

Ah, so you do claim to know something, after all. Does this mean we can now ditch the whole "don't know" joke talk out the window?

And what about some of the other things you claim to "know", such as that the word "mu" has no meaning. As you now saying that you don't really know if that is the case?

-

[Ataraxia]

The pointing finger necessarily has meaning by virtue of the fact that it is pointing to the moon. The very act of pointing creates the meaning.

Well i agree;the act of pointing gives rise to meaning,to me. ".... is no mountain,THERE IT IS"

So why can't the act be said to be a concept,if done by the Dao, or Zen master? If I'm reading you aright you are saying it can. So too with "Mu..ing"

And this is where i suffer dissonance,and i supsect Laird does too.Because there was a fairly lengthy thread not so long ago where Kevin seemed to deny just that.

[RobertGreenSky]

And I just absolutely know I cannot know anything absolutely.

Ah, so you do claim to know something, after all. Does this mean we can now ditch the whole "don't know" joke talk out the window?

And what about some of the other things you claim to "know", such as that the word "mu" has no meaning. As you now saying that you don't really know if that is the case?

-

David,

That misinterpretation fits in the 'blithering idiot' class of mistakes.

I find it's best not to make absolute statements,unless I know something absolutely. :)

And I just absolutely know I cannot know anything absolutely. :)

I hope you'll continue to contribute, and Elizabeth, and Laird also if he has the interest.

If I didn't assume that was a ridiculous mistake on your part I'd have to assume you were being patently dishonest. Does anyone else fail to see I was having a quiet conversation with Ataraxia and making a joke about absolutes, one at least vaguely amusing given the context. But if you want to hold me to having written it in all seriousness and as though I would have undermined myself so openly and so thoughtlessly, then what can I do but recant and observe that it obviously does not represent my actual view.

Would the Buddha have written what you did? Would the Buddha have omitted the smilie clearly present in my post as he prepared his quote to post? If you all are enlightened as you claim to be then it shouldn't bother you that the Buddha is used as a mirror. Every distortion further makes my point that the images we are seeing look nothing like the Buddha.

If you can make your case from Nagarjuna and from Zhuangzi then why don't you get your arse to it? You do not answer Nagarjuna, Zhuangzi, Amban, or Chao-chou, all quoted above, by trying to pretend you're clever in misquoting me.

'Neither Robert nor Nat have thought through this issue properly and hence they rely heavily on the words of others, such as Lao Tzu and Nagarjuna, to keep propping them up.' (David Quinn, above.) That is the lamest imaginable take on 'Nat and Robert can support their positions but David Quinn can't'. If you want to use at this point the Nagarjuna you posted earlier in this thread then either make it known or bring it forward. But if you can't deal with 'mu' in Nagarjuna or Zhuangzi then quit bullshitting.

[RobertGreenSky]

And I just absolutely know I cannot know anything absolutely.

Ah, so you do claim to know something, after all. Does this mean we can now ditch the whole "don't know" joke talk out the window?

And what about some of the other things you claim to "know", such as that the word "mu" has no meaning. As you now saying that you don't really know if that is the case?

-

Quinn,

Bodhidharma and Hui-neng are chiefly responsibile for the use of 'don't know' in Zen. Are you in agreement with them or not?

[Laird]

The pointing finger necessarily has meaning by virtue of the fact that it is pointing to the moon. The very act of pointing creates the meaning.

Well i agree;the act of pointing gives rise to meaning,to me. ".... is no mountain,THERE IT IS"

So why can't the act be said to be a concept,if done by the Dao, or Zen master? If I'm reading you aright you are saying it can. So too with "Mu..ing"

And this is where i suffer dissonance,and i supsect Laird does too.Because there was a fairly lengthy thread not so long ago where Kevin seemed to deny just that.

I suspect that you're referring to the thread, "Naturalistic philosophy denies life?" I'm not sure that I remember Kevin denying that pointing can be conceptual - I believe that he was trying to argue more that his philosophical pronouncements on the Totality do not constitute modelling but are instead "pointing". I did a quick search on "finger pointing at the moon model" and came up with a list of posts from that thread which seem to support this recollection. On the other hand, if you can find some specific quotes where Kevin denies that pointing can be conceptual then I'd love to read them.

[Sapius]

Diebert,

There's a good case to be made that 'mu' or other similar terms just contain the quite specific meaning that the question cannot be answered because the question itself is being born out of incorrect assumptions. And by shorten it to one word the usual sharp Zen style is maintained.

Which is actually meant for someone who already has quite a good grasp of reality and is on the brink of a breakthrough in my opinion, for in that case one will immediately understand what the “word” points to, and recognize ones own shortcomings of incorrect assumptions, and realize, “WTF am I asking!”

Now one cannot blame someone for ones “style” of delivery, and one “style” could be more effective than another; that's a personal choice. But, which one produces more impact and change is the question, and I think the wittiness in “Zen” has more impact for the one who has really spent much time on "monkey-chatter" - seriously evaluating it. Although I don’t know much about Zen, but I think it is most complimentary and helps aid sink in an already mature philosophical view, and is essentially much more logical at its core than one would care to think. It's something like a last nail in the coffin, shutting in the False-ego, shedding all false conceptions. I think that is what it's supposed to achieve.

In case of the dog having Buddha-nature or not, it's just like asking if apples are sinful or not. The question is wrong on so many levels that one needs a bang for the head or one could just say anything random that would hint at how invalid the question is at least.

Or like asking, where did Totality come from? Same thing – ‘mu’!

It doesn't mean Buddha-nature cannot be discussed meaningfully, or dogs, or sin.

Or Totality for that matter, but each has his own weight to carry, until it is all dropped.

I love monkey chatter by the way; that’s all that is left for me :D

My respects, Diebert.

[Dan Rowden]

Pointing is necessarily conceptual, that's why it's only called "pointing".

Emperor Wu certainly didn't know what Bodhidharma meant by "I don't know". But Bodhidharma knew what he meant, otherwise it wouldn't have meant anything to say it. Know what I mean?