It seems my last comments really upset you. Is it really because they were so ignorant and worthless - or perhaps they were effective? They hit a nerve?
the problem you and dave have is being in what I call "waiting at the end of time"
you are damaged (like me!) you can see that there is a craziness to life that doesn't add up, but you chose to remain in that "end of time" space (which is basically loafing around) and not take the next step up !
sepehr g. is at least trying !
I have been in that space and really had no help getting out of it, it was a long process and being alert to the issues was a slow perception !
here you are being helped and all you can do loaf and *try* to bait me as entertainment for yourselves !
that's what I am to you, *entertainment*
I am sympathetic to people with a genuine interest which means actually a lot less posting here and working somethings out for yourself !
I have 100's of thousand's of words on the web and it's just about all one song of this moving and having moved out of this "end of time" space !
reddit is agood example of "end of timers" you back ewk intoa corner, but they just back out and go to another thread..............
i'm not personally critical of the choice to stay end of timing, but it's too penal for me in terms of my time to be some sort of performer for you !
also I use some of these dialogues for writing material..........
you must have had some insight as a child and it got lost, hard to say how, an early slight dementia, bit much alcohol, lol, too much education !, I can only speculate................
if you look around you will see "end of timer/s" everywhere, that's what makes those who take the step up and out so precious !
end of timers of course have a sense of their shortfalling in the presence of those who step up and out, so react like you do, try to pull it down...............
what really disturbs me about you, is like ewk, when you are backed into a corner, you just flick off to avoid addressing it so I think "what the hell ! ?"
It's because being an apocalyptic basically equals being back into a corner - that's why we're end timers because we're in the corner; not only in a debate, but over all, that's our existential predicament. We're both unable to drop the idea of Buddha-Dharma, while simultaneously we feel or in some case we experienced the futility of "striving" and this or that practice. So this is where cunning intelligence is actually born, in people like ewk. They employ dialectics to present their own failure as a success. There were many historical precedents of Buddhist end timers. Perhaps the most exemplary being Shinran about his understanding of the "calling Buddha's Name" "practice" (which isn't really a meditative practice at all):
"I really do not know whether the nembutsu may be the cause for my birth in the Pure Land, or the act that shall condemn me to hell. But I have nothing to regret, even if I should have been deceived by my teacher, and, saying the nembutsu, fall into hell. The reason is that if I were capable of realizing buddhahood by other religious practices and yet fell into hell for saying the nembutsu I might have dire regrets for having been deceived. But since I am absolutely incapable of any religious practice, hell is my only home."
What is the "next step up"? And why do you say that "we" are not taking it, when sepehr is? Because he dutifully reads all of the things you suggest?
I won't speak for zakaj, but communicating with you is not "entertainment". It's actually quite difficult because, like your protestations of ewk for not "intelligently revealing himself", you don't really reveal yourself either! You play your posturing and criticizing game -- even your faintest compliments must be accompanied by criticism or self-praise. And the reality of who you are and how you live remains enshrouded behind protective mechanisms.
For instance, when I've written something you've approved of, you have suggested that only someone in your position can understand creativity, can "put in the work", and so on. Many times, I'd like to have said, "give it a rest", but I see that you're not in control of your anger and narcissism. It's as you've suggested: take what wisdom you can from someone, without getting involved in their bullshit hang-ups. Unfortunately, you seem to be lacking anybody to call you out on your hang-ups and put a check on your self-aggrandizement...
zakaj said: "We're both unable to drop the idea of Buddha-Dharma, while simultaneously we feel or in some case we experienced the futility of "striving" and this or that practice."
I somewhat agree, though I have at least a hazy view of a particular direction in my life, and a path toward further renunciation. My "problem" is in stubbornly keeping one foot firmly in the sensual world, out of doubt that a life of renunciation is not merely a selfish escape. Seeing your example, Andrew, provides not a shining exemplar of such a life. In fact, your criticism of other hermits and renunciates often shows your bitterness that not everyone is as damaged as you are.
Anyway, I feel progress on that front, even if the striving and "practice" aren't there. After all, I'm not a nihilist.
I feel like you guys are wasting your times feeling offended. Zen/Chan teachers used to slap their students all the time. If the students were to get offended and ruminate upon their hurt feelings, nothing would be accomplished. I will use this post to explain what Andrew is pointing at:
I had one friend, Fish, who was very similar to Andrew. He argued and Zen and Neo-Advaitan philosophies are like a "Will to Blobject" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/#ExiMon). Andrew's philosophy can likewise be described as a "Will to Infinity" where he sums it up as "meaning is a fluid". Both my friend and Andrew frequently emphasized on the importance of both the unreal and real, and how there is a quasi-border between the two. They are not discrete objects either:
Andrew succinctly summarizes his position here: http://mueller_ranges.tripod.com/andrew/pending_poems89.html#moronacy
Neo-Advaita and modern Zen are like a black obsidian stone whereas Fish and Andrew's philosophy are like [animated and fragmented] ammonite(s). Deleuze's philosophical tries to refute the "Blobject" and the "undifferentiated monism" which is similar to the black obsidian stone.
It makes sense to remain celibate, get daily solitude in natural scenery, and read lots of good poetry. This is because poetry opens the door to understanding the myriad of meanings. Andrew once said, "An explosion of meanings," in relation to Emily Dickinson's poetry. At first I didn't understand, but the more you read and write your own poetry, the more you'll have glimpses of infinity that starts to make sense alongside the senseless.
My friend Fish wrote a beautiful poem rebuking Hui-Neng's famous mirror poem. I, however lost it, but when I find it, I will post it here for Andrew to read! I really want him to read it, for I think this poem is truly enlightening Both Andrew and my friend say the exact same thing, and once I find this poem, all of you will understand! If it weren't for him, I would have difficulty understanding Andrew. I feel like it's almost fate I came across this blog to read deeply and become more aware of greats like Emily Dickinson.
Andrew once said this, which my friend similarly said:
" to
see
infinity
you
have
to
be
in
love
with
everything
how
beautiful
and
cruel
that
is !"
Andrew may or may not be the 7thZenPatriarch, but he definitely puts all the Soto assholes to shame with his own ORIGINAL work, which you all are having difficulty understanding! Once I find the poem, you all, Zakaj and Dave, will understand what Andrew and Fish are getting at!!!
This verse from the Gospel of Thomas also points to Andrew and Fish's message. It is drastically different from the blobject voyneuch in modern Zen:
"This heaven will pass away, and the one above it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will not die. In the days when you consumed what is dead, you made it what is alive. When you come to dwell in the light, what will you do? On the day when you were one you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"
Alright, behold this poem Zakaj and Dave. This poem will lift your delusions and make you understand the truth in Andrew's teachings. Behold:
"Only Shenxiu wrote a poem, anonymously on the wall in the middle of the night.[5] It stated:[6]
身是菩提樹， The body is a Bodhi tree, 心如明鏡臺。 The mind a standing mirror bright. 時時勤拂拭， At all times polish it diligently, 勿使惹塵埃。 And let no dust alight.
After having read this poem aloud to him, Hui-neng asked an officer to write another gatha on the wall for him, next to Shenxiu's, which stated:[7]
菩提本無樹， Bodhi is fundamentally without any tree; 明鏡亦非臺。 The bright mirror is also not a stand. 本來無一物， Fundamentally there is not a single thing — 何處惹塵埃。 Where could any dust be attracted?"
Approximately 1300 years later, Fish responded:
"In the heart of the not-forests There is a copse of not-wisdom trees Nothingness surrounds them all Like the waves of a not-sea
But since nothingness by nature Is the space beyond not-space There is nothing to stop something From existing every place"
If you sum up my comment as "feeling offended", then you're hopelessly lost. There's no offense; merely pointing out how craziness impedes communication.
I don't find Andrew difficult to understand. It's just impossible to have a genuine interaction with him. You can find out yourself whether wisdom must come in such a curmudgeonly package.
You quoted him as saying "you must be in love with everything" -- well, the vast majority of what he writes is to put people down as morons, complain about how everyone gets everything wrong, and boost himself in the process. There's a missing link, you see...
Your fish poem really adds nothing to what Huineng said, nor is it relevant to the comments I made. But you seem blinded by a childish attachment.
You're the idiot who hasn't read into what Andrew is saying.
Have you even read his poems on his poem link? He acknowledges this in one of his poems, here: http://mueller_ranges.tripod.com/andrew/different.html
The Love Andrew speaks of requires just as much pain... pain is very important to it. Even Schopenhauer comprehended it.
The thing is... you are so arrogant you are not listening to either Andrew or me. Don't worry, when you cool down and read over this again, you'll understand how Andrew is reforming Zen for the better.
You need your OWN resources, your OWN creativity. If you don't understand this, go away.
Here are more of Andrew's poems. I recommend clicking on them near the bottom: http://mueller_ranges.tripod.com/andrew/andrew_index.html
I've read shit like Dogen, Diamond Sutra, and etc. etc. I've read a lot. But there is something Zen/Chan loses that the spark of Emily Dickinson, Bukowski, and Andrew's poetry possess. Dogen was enlightened near his death when he was writing poetry like:
my last journey to kyoto
a frail as
a blade of grass,
i
walk to kyoto,
seeming to wander
amid the cloudy mist
on kinobe pass
On the eighth month/fifteenth day (the harvest) moon in the year of dogen's death:
just when my longing to see
the moon over kyoto
one last time grows deepest,
the image i behold this autumn night
leaves me sleepless for it's beauty.
If you stop getting offended by Andrew's retorts, and instead do some quality reading, we can actually discuss substantial shit. But of course, this is difficult for you.
Andrew says autism is a good paradigm for Zen/Chan and infinity. Your interactions should be done inwardly, in deep solitude and reflection. You are not speaking with Andrew. You are not interacting with him. His autism makes it to where you are literally confronting infinity. This is why he is the 7th Zen Patriarch. Of course, you're just going to make bullshit drama as a way to avoid it...
You poor thing, you've already started to ape his personality...
What do you know about pain and love? From what I've read of your writing, you seem quite sheltered. I've had more than my share of pain and love. I know exactly how it must be so.
He really doesn't need sycophants to defend him, you know. If anyone creates bullshit drama, it's you and your vigorous defense. You could use a little more perspective; there are many pieces to the puzzle, yet you seem to fixate on one piece, worshiping it, in a way.
You're obviously offended and not looking at the bigger picture here, Dave.
I realize Andrew's scathing approach may hurt you, but if you do not succumb to the pain or feelings of offense, you'll understand his messages. You don't get, man. Why would you complain so much about Andrew, critiquing him, and yet you say nothing substantial about his poetry or insight, itself? Do you realize you're the one who's fixating more on "he said this" or "he said that' rather than the insight in the poetry itself. I bet you didn't even click the links of poetry of Andrew I gave.
I know it's difficult comprehending it at first... but stick to it and you'll get it.
I have a big binder from talking to my friend Fish who read a copious amount of poetry and a German philosopher Manolito who was very well-verse in Schopenhauer (well I lost most of his stuff). The stuff Andrew says kinda resonates with their stuff. Andrew is reforming Zen/Chan in a meticulous way. I really recommend you read his poetry and 7thzenpatriarch blog more closely.
Seriously, man, Andrew is well-read. Just look at his book list. Do you really think he has nothing to point at? If you keep getting offended by his casual insults, you're not going to learn anything.
Think about the videos of Derrida he gives. He doesn't just fling it for no reason. It connects to the overall context of his writings.
"explosion of meanings" from Emily Dickinson's poetry. How does this relate to context of the "original face"? It means the original face doesn't point to a monistic source or "collapse of subject/object dichotomy". It means that each meaning is like a wave in the heterogeneously colored ocean that is ever moving, that the attempt to produce discrete objects is bound to fail, for the river is only understood through one's creative effort. It is a Will to Infinity, not a Will-to-Power or Will-to-Life. It is not about the denial of the Will either. It is about something else I am trying to comprehend.
Deleuze's virtuality relates to it too.
This is why I am linking you to his poetry, giving you my own poetry, and etc.
It all connects. I sounded sporadic in my messages beacause I was synthesizing too much "meaning" at once. Read that, and you'll get what I'm pointing at.
I recommend downloading it in either pdf or word file. It's formatted for that.
"well, the vast majority of what he writes is to put people down as morons, complain about how everyone gets everything wrong, and boost himself in the process. "
Yep, that pretty much sums you up too. Take a peek at the fool you've been making of yourself over at Brad Warner's blog. Your 'problem' has less to do with all that twee, self-aggrandizing rubbish about having one foot in the sensual world and renunciation, and much more to do with an arrogant attitude of entitlement, wrapping itself up in tough-talking interventions which fail to mask how little you understand about what you pontificate on. Your latest silly attempts to criticize Mr Warner produced some fine examples of projection and cod psychology to the extent that you obviously waylaid reading accurately what the guy had written.
In addition to the above, as you like to olay the big man with advice to give, here's some back: stop trawling the net for excuses to feel superior; shut up and pick a practice and stick to it for three years. And ask questions - you've got nothing to say of any authentic value from that teenage pedestal you've placed yourself on. You can elevate your procrastination to a speciously inflated 'problem' until the day you die, and if I had to put a bet on it, I'd say that was the more likely outcome - especially if you insist on encouraging that persistent blind-spot on your self-awareness.
And whatever one might say about Andrew's mode of communicating that hasn't been said a zillion times before, one thing's for certain: when his writing hits its purple patches, it's the real deal, and that's good enough for me.
"Nan Saph", would you be "Andy" on Brad Warner's blog, by any chance? It's your M.O. to go to great lengths to defend your heroes. That's the story in the comments section there: a bunch of guys patting each other on the back, getting snippy when someone interrupts the patting. It doesn't take a Ph.D in psychology to see that.
Hey, if you want to diagnose me further, feel free to email me. You can easily find the address.
I'm not. And it doesn't take a Phd to fixate on a fiction which fits the skinbag's very special hero. Your highly selective and imaginative reading of the character relationships on the Hardcorezen blog can not be supported with evidence that isn't the result of of a good massage. I read the chumminess of voices that have become familiar in a space they trust, most of whom have criticised their host and each other, at one time or another. If many of these voices lead back to practices that are similar, you should expect their perspectives to have developed similar reflexes. Just as your conditioned behaviour brings its own immediately recognisable filters to the table. I notice Harry was very polite with them. Take another look in three years time. Or don't.
Some stories are better analogues than others.
Diagnosis? Truth meets itself. Same as the prognosis. Will the winter cold prod you awake tomorrow morning or find you snatching for that cosy pillow? Now that's the real story and nobody's business but your own.
Ah, that's more reasonable. When you (or I) act out of anger, you're bound to miss the mark. Why you decided to inject yourself here to criticize me, I don't know, but the offer still stands: dave@st.germa.in Bear in mind that I'm not the sum of my comments on the internet. And I don't have to "make myself" a fool; it comes naturally. Then again, there's no claim to being an authority (patriarch or master), to selling any books or any brand.
Why wait until tomorrow to meet the cold? Just walking into my house, it's 35ºF.
Try not to mistake the face of you recognise as anger for my play. I put my gruff daddy suit on, because your tough-guy filters respond to that. Missed the mark? Look again. I didn't criticize you, just your persona. There are consonances in how personas like yours are drawn and respond to a persona like, say, Harry Bradley's, and in contrast to those like Brad Warner's.
I disagree about the fool. The fool is made, constructed, written. That is why your nature and my nature are sometimes called 'no nature'. The more we realise this, the less friction we feel when entering the game. Certain cultural theories describe a 'symbolic order' and attempt to grapple with its 'signlessness'. It is through this context that I addressed your claims to authority. They don't have to be 'claimed' overtly. That was a literalistic side-step you made (you did the same with 'the cold') because I tugged the author's tail; the one who fashions a view, the one thrown into the world of signs and attempts to take command, appear in control - a learnt and a given. To call the claim to authority a teenager is a claim to authority from the standpoint of parent.
Why did I inject myself? It's fun to play daddy (said mommy), and I'm a sucker for such brazen invitations. Why here? I like popping round to read An3drew's poems, and some of your droppings looked they'd ripened enough for a game of pong.
Ah contraire, if you think I respond better to scolding from some pseudonym, you missed the mark.
I can see your points while disagreeing with your prognosis (which, by the way, was a prescription for me, not my persona).
Ultimately, I'm not interested in the kabuki theater of personas, nor should anyone be. Read other things I've written, drop me a line, whatever. The door is always open; I've nothing to protect.
You're right about my sidestepping, but if I don't agree completely with your premise, why not let the breeze through? I stand by my assessment of Mr.Warner, even if my mode of communicating wasn't clear enough. And as to what I 'ought to do', like I said, I'm not responsive to a stranger who has peeked at a few of my droppings.
Lower the persona and find a way to meet, or not. Otherwise, we're flinging droppings at eachother on someone else's lawn.
I do my share of flinging, and despite what you may think, my intentions are to help others (and myself!) toward more clarity. I know I often miss the mark, and I see that this kind of communication on the internet becomes draining and pointless.
Most people are content with kabuki theater. How about you, Nan Saph?
You responded to the scolding strategy as I expected, which holds neither disappointment nor satisfaction, but is of interest.
'Persona', 'I', 'me', 'you', indicate the constructed/constructing fictions; the play of 'a dream within a dream' if you like your Dogen.
Over the years, I've found myself less interested in voices agreeing with my premises. That's akin to sportsmen agreeing on the outcome of a game before playing. After the first blush of self-validation, little is learned and even less fun.
'Lower the persona'? Not in a quazillion epochs can it do so, kiddo! Perhaps allow it manifest in its fullness, sloughing skin after skin.
'Most people are content with kabuki theater. How about you, Nan Saph?'
'Most people' is as stupid as those assessments of Mr Warner and others, which departed from evidence and displayed little understanding, or even sufficient attention to what was written, by him or those others. How can you begin to see 'kabuki theater' or Nan Saph while sleeping walking?
Take care with that PR about your intentions, especially the stinker of 'helping others'. Certain practices can help uncover ones intentions and how the become syphoned. There's another intention which we can allow to develop, but that's where I should shut up.
It seems my last comments really upset you. Is it really because they were so ignorant and worthless - or perhaps they were effective? They hit a nerve?
ReplyDeletethe problem you and dave have is being in what I call "waiting at the end of time"
Deleteyou are damaged (like me!) you can see that there is a craziness to life that doesn't add up, but you chose to remain in that "end of time" space (which is basically loafing around) and not take the next step up !
sepehr g. is at least trying !
I have been in that space and really had no help getting out of it, it was a long process and being alert to the issues was a slow perception !
here you are being helped and all you can do loaf and *try* to bait me as entertainment for yourselves !
that's what I am to you, *entertainment*
I am sympathetic to people with a genuine interest which means actually a lot less posting here and working somethings out for yourself !
I have 100's of thousand's of words on the web and it's just about all one song of this moving and having moved out of this "end of time" space !
reddit is agood example of "end of timers" you back ewk intoa corner, but they just back out and go to another thread..............
i'm not personally critical of the choice to stay end of timing, but it's too penal for me in terms of my time to be some sort of performer for you !
also I use some of these dialogues for writing material..........
you must have had some insight as a child and it got lost, hard to say how, an early slight dementia, bit much alcohol, lol, too much education !, I can only speculate................
if you look around you will see "end of timer/s" everywhere, that's what makes those who take the step up and out so precious !
end of timers of course have a sense of their shortfalling in the presence of those who step up and out, so react like you do, try to pull it down...............
what really disturbs me about you, is like ewk, when you are backed into a corner, you just flick off to avoid addressing it so I think "what the hell ! ?"
It's because being an apocalyptic basically equals being back into a corner - that's why we're end timers because we're in the corner; not only in a debate, but over all, that's our existential predicament. We're both unable to drop the idea of Buddha-Dharma, while simultaneously we feel or in some case we experienced the futility of "striving" and this or that practice. So this is where cunning intelligence is actually born, in people like ewk. They employ dialectics to present their own failure as a success. There were many historical precedents of Buddhist end timers. Perhaps the most exemplary being Shinran about his understanding of the "calling Buddha's Name" "practice" (which isn't really a meditative practice at all):
Delete"I really do not know whether the nembutsu may be the cause for my birth in the Pure Land, or the act that shall condemn me to hell. But I have nothing to regret, even if I should have been deceived by my teacher, and, saying the nembutsu, fall into hell. The reason is that if I were capable of realizing buddhahood by other religious practices and yet fell into hell for saying the nembutsu I might have dire regrets for having been deceived. But since I am absolutely incapable of any religious practice, hell is my only home."
What is the "next step up"? And why do you say that "we" are not taking it, when sepehr is? Because he dutifully reads all of the things you suggest?
DeleteI won't speak for zakaj, but communicating with you is not "entertainment". It's actually quite difficult because, like your protestations of ewk for not "intelligently revealing himself", you don't really reveal yourself either! You play your posturing and criticizing game -- even your faintest compliments must be accompanied by criticism or self-praise. And the reality of who you are and how you live remains enshrouded behind protective mechanisms.
For instance, when I've written something you've approved of, you have suggested that only someone in your position can understand creativity, can "put in the work", and so on. Many times, I'd like to have said, "give it a rest", but I see that you're not in control of your anger and narcissism. It's as you've suggested: take what wisdom you can from someone, without getting involved in their bullshit hang-ups. Unfortunately, you seem to be lacking anybody to call you out on your hang-ups and put a check on your self-aggrandizement...
zakaj said:
"We're both unable to drop the idea of Buddha-Dharma, while simultaneously we feel or in some case we experienced the futility of "striving" and this or that practice."
I somewhat agree, though I have at least a hazy view of a particular direction in my life, and a path toward further renunciation. My "problem" is in stubbornly keeping one foot firmly in the sensual world, out of doubt that a life of renunciation is not merely a selfish escape. Seeing your example, Andrew, provides not a shining exemplar of such a life. In fact, your criticism of other hermits and renunciates often shows your bitterness that not everyone is as damaged as you are.
Anyway, I feel progress on that front, even if the striving and "practice" aren't there. After all, I'm not a nihilist.
No use crying over spilled milk.
I feel like you guys are wasting your times feeling offended. Zen/Chan teachers used to slap their students all the time. If the students were to get offended and ruminate upon their hurt feelings, nothing would be accomplished. I will use this post to explain what Andrew is pointing at:
DeleteI had one friend, Fish, who was very similar to Andrew. He argued and Zen and Neo-Advaitan philosophies are like a "Will to Blobject" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/#ExiMon). Andrew's philosophy can likewise be described as a "Will to Infinity" where he sums it up as "meaning is a fluid". Both my friend and Andrew frequently emphasized on the importance of both the unreal and real, and how there is a quasi-border between the two. They are not discrete objects either:
Andrew succinctly summarizes his position here:
http://mueller_ranges.tripod.com/andrew/pending_poems89.html#moronacy
Neo-Advaita and modern Zen are like a black obsidian stone whereas Fish and Andrew's philosophy are like [animated and fragmented] ammonite(s). Deleuze's philosophical tries to refute the "Blobject" and the "undifferentiated monism" which is similar to the black obsidian stone.
It makes sense to remain celibate, get daily solitude in natural scenery, and read lots of good poetry. This is because poetry opens the door to understanding the myriad of meanings. Andrew once said, "An explosion of meanings," in relation to Emily Dickinson's poetry. At first I didn't understand, but the more you read and write your own poetry, the more you'll have glimpses of infinity that starts to make sense alongside the senseless.
My friend Fish wrote a beautiful poem rebuking Hui-Neng's famous mirror poem. I, however lost it, but when I find it, I will post it here for Andrew to read! I really want him to read it, for I think this poem is truly enlightening Both Andrew and my friend say the exact same thing, and once I find this poem, all of you will understand! If it weren't for him, I would have difficulty understanding Andrew. I feel like it's almost fate I came across this blog to read deeply and become more aware of greats like Emily Dickinson.
Andrew once said this, which my friend similarly said:
" to
see
infinity
you
have
to
be
in
love
with
everything
how
beautiful
and
cruel
that
is !"
Andrew may or may not be the 7thZenPatriarch, but he definitely puts all the Soto assholes to shame with his own ORIGINAL work, which you all are having difficulty understanding! Once I find the poem, you all, Zakaj and Dave, will understand what Andrew and Fish are getting at!!!
This verse from the Gospel of Thomas also points to Andrew and Fish's message. It is drastically different from the blobject voyneuch in modern Zen:
"This heaven will pass away, and the one above
it will pass away. The dead are not alive, and the living will
not die. In the days when you consumed what is dead, you made it
what is alive. When you come to dwell in the light, what will you
do? On the day when you were one you became two. But when you
become two, what will you do?"
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAlright, behold this poem Zakaj and Dave. This poem will lift your delusions and make you understand the truth in Andrew's teachings. Behold:
Delete"Only Shenxiu wrote a poem, anonymously on the wall in the middle of the night.[5] It stated:[6]
身是菩提樹， The body is a Bodhi tree,
心如明鏡臺。 The mind a standing mirror bright.
時時勤拂拭， At all times polish it diligently,
勿使惹塵埃。 And let no dust alight.
After having read this poem aloud to him, Hui-neng asked an officer to write another gatha on the wall for him, next to Shenxiu's, which stated:[7]
菩提本無樹， Bodhi is fundamentally without any tree;
明鏡亦非臺。 The bright mirror is also not a stand.
本來無一物， Fundamentally there is not a single thing —
何處惹塵埃。 Where could any dust be attracted?"
Approximately 1300 years later, Fish responded:
"In the heart of the not-forests
There is a copse of not-wisdom trees
Nothingness surrounds them all
Like the waves of a not-sea
But since nothingness by nature
Is the space beyond not-space
There is nothing to stop something
From existing every place"
If you sum up my comment as "feeling offended", then you're hopelessly lost. There's no offense; merely pointing out how craziness impedes communication.
DeleteI don't find Andrew difficult to understand. It's just impossible to have a genuine interaction with him. You can find out yourself whether wisdom must come in such a curmudgeonly package.
You quoted him as saying "you must be in love with everything" -- well, the vast majority of what he writes is to put people down as morons, complain about how everyone gets everything wrong, and boost himself in the process. There's a missing link, you see...
Your fish poem really adds nothing to what Huineng said, nor is it relevant to the comments I made. But you seem blinded by a childish attachment.
You're the idiot who hasn't read into what Andrew is saying.
DeleteHave you even read his poems on his poem link? He acknowledges this in one of his poems, here:
http://mueller_ranges.tripod.com/andrew/different.html
The Love Andrew speaks of requires just as much pain... pain is very important to it. Even Schopenhauer comprehended it.
The thing is... you are so arrogant you are not listening to either Andrew or me. Don't worry, when you cool down and read over this again, you'll understand how Andrew is reforming Zen for the better.
I left Soto Zen because of this:
http://mueller_ranges.tripod.com/andrew/untitled118.html
You need your OWN resources, your OWN creativity. If you don't understand this, go away.
Here are more of Andrew's poems. I recommend clicking on them near the bottom:
http://mueller_ranges.tripod.com/andrew/andrew_index.html
I've read shit like Dogen, Diamond Sutra, and etc. etc. I've read a lot. But there is something Zen/Chan loses that the spark of Emily Dickinson, Bukowski, and Andrew's poetry possess. Dogen was enlightened near his death when he was writing poetry like:
my last journey to kyoto
a frail as
a blade of grass,
i
walk to kyoto,
seeming to wander
amid the cloudy mist
on kinobe pass
On the eighth month/fifteenth day (the harvest) moon in the year of dogen's death:
just when my longing to see
the moon over kyoto
one last time grows deepest,
the image i behold this autumn night
leaves me sleepless for it's beauty.
If you stop getting offended by Andrew's retorts, and instead do some quality reading, we can actually discuss substantial shit. But of course, this is difficult for you.
Andrew says autism is a good paradigm for Zen/Chan and infinity. Your interactions should be done inwardly, in deep solitude and reflection. You are not speaking with Andrew. You are not interacting with him. His autism makes it to where you are literally confronting infinity. This is why he is the 7th Zen Patriarch. Of course, you're just going to make bullshit drama as a way to avoid it...
Deletehttp://mueller_ranges.tripod.com/andrew/poems_infinity.html
You poor thing, you've already started to ape his personality...
DeleteWhat do you know about pain and love? From what I've read of your writing, you seem quite sheltered. I've had more than my share of pain and love. I know exactly how it must be so.
Hey, you can read my poetry if you like.
He really doesn't need sycophants to defend him, you know. If anyone creates bullshit drama, it's you and your vigorous defense. You could use a little more perspective; there are many pieces to the puzzle, yet you seem to fixate on one piece, worshiping it, in a way.
You're obviously offended and not looking at the bigger picture here, Dave.
DeleteI realize Andrew's scathing approach may hurt you, but if you do not succumb to the pain or feelings of offense, you'll understand his messages. You don't get, man. Why would you complain so much about Andrew, critiquing him, and yet you say nothing substantial about his poetry or insight, itself? Do you realize you're the one who's fixating more on "he said this" or "he said that' rather than the insight in the poetry itself. I bet you didn't even click the links of poetry of Andrew I gave.
Why are you even posting here?!
haha. Now I get it! Your whole schtick is an elaborate joke.
DeleteVery subtle and clever. Carry on.
:)
I'm not joking.
DeleteIs it okay if you re-read all my posts again?
I know it's difficult comprehending it at first... but stick to it and you'll get it.
I have a big binder from talking to my friend Fish who read a copious amount of poetry and a German philosopher Manolito who was very well-verse in Schopenhauer (well I lost most of his stuff). The stuff Andrew says kinda resonates with their stuff. Andrew is reforming Zen/Chan in a meticulous way. I really recommend you read his poetry and 7thzenpatriarch blog more closely.
Seriously, man, Andrew is well-read. Just look at his book list. Do you really think he has nothing to point at? If you keep getting offended by his casual insults, you're not going to learn anything.
Think about the videos of Derrida he gives. He doesn't just fling it for no reason. It connects to the overall context of his writings.
"explosion of meanings" from Emily Dickinson's poetry. How does this relate to context of the "original face"? It means the original face doesn't point to a monistic source or "collapse of subject/object dichotomy". It means that each meaning is like a wave in the heterogeneously colored ocean that is ever moving, that the attempt to produce discrete objects is bound to fail, for the river is only understood through one's creative effort. It is a Will to Infinity, not a Will-to-Power or Will-to-Life. It is not about the denial of the Will either. It is about something else I am trying to comprehend.
Deleuze's virtuality relates to it too.
This is why I am linking you to his poetry, giving you my own poetry, and etc.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteZakaj and Dave, read this.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/196730918/The-7th-Zen-Patriarch-that-went-Unnoticed
It all connects. I sounded sporadic in my messages beacause I was synthesizing too much "meaning" at once. Read that, and you'll get what I'm pointing at.
I recommend downloading it in either pdf or word file. It's formatted for that.
Note, I forgot to mention Andrew also heavily recommends Bustan and Orchard by Saadi. Was going to add it to aphorisms but I forgot.
DeleteDave St. Germaine:
ReplyDelete"well, the vast majority of what he writes is to put people down as morons, complain about how everyone gets everything wrong, and boost himself in the process. "
Yep, that pretty much sums you up too. Take a peek at the fool you've been making of yourself over at Brad Warner's blog. Your 'problem' has less to do with all that twee, self-aggrandizing rubbish about having one foot in the sensual world and renunciation, and much more to do with an arrogant attitude of entitlement, wrapping itself up in tough-talking interventions which fail to mask how little you understand about what you pontificate on. Your latest silly attempts to criticize Mr Warner produced some fine examples of projection and cod psychology to the extent that you obviously waylaid reading accurately what the guy had written.
In addition to the above, as you like to olay the big man with advice to give, here's some back: stop trawling the net for excuses to feel superior; shut up and pick a practice and stick to it for three years. And ask questions - you've got nothing to say of any authentic value from that teenage pedestal you've placed yourself on. You can elevate your procrastination to a speciously inflated 'problem' until the day you die, and if I had to put a bet on it, I'd say that was the more likely outcome - especially if you insist on encouraging that persistent blind-spot on your self-awareness.
And whatever one might say about Andrew's mode of communicating that hasn't been said a zillion times before, one thing's for certain: when his writing hits its purple patches, it's the real deal, and that's good enough for me.
"Nan Saph", would you be "Andy" on Brad Warner's blog, by any chance? It's your M.O. to go to great lengths to defend your heroes. That's the story in the comments section there: a bunch of guys patting each other on the back, getting snippy when someone interrupts the patting. It doesn't take a Ph.D in psychology to see that.
DeleteHey, if you want to diagnose me further, feel free to email me. You can easily find the address.
I'm not. And it doesn't take a Phd to fixate on a fiction which fits the skinbag's very special hero. Your highly selective and imaginative reading of the character relationships on the Hardcorezen blog can not be supported with evidence that isn't the result of of a good massage. I read the chumminess of voices that have become familiar in a space they trust, most of whom have criticised their host and each other, at one time or another. If many of these voices lead back to practices that are similar, you should expect their perspectives to have developed similar reflexes. Just as your conditioned behaviour brings its own immediately recognisable filters to the table. I notice Harry was very polite with them. Take another look in three years time. Or don't.
ReplyDeleteSome stories are better analogues than others.
Diagnosis? Truth meets itself. Same as the prognosis. Will the winter cold prod you awake tomorrow morning or find you snatching for that cosy pillow? Now that's the real story and nobody's business but your own.
Ah, that's more reasonable. When you (or I) act out of anger, you're bound to miss the mark. Why you decided to inject yourself here to criticize me, I don't know, but the offer still stands: dave@st.germa.in Bear in mind that I'm not the sum of my comments on the internet. And I don't have to "make myself" a fool; it comes naturally. Then again, there's no claim to being an authority (patriarch or master), to selling any books or any brand.
DeleteWhy wait until tomorrow to meet the cold? Just walking into my house, it's 35ºF.
Try not to mistake the face of you recognise as anger for my play. I put my gruff daddy suit on, because your tough-guy filters respond to that. Missed the mark? Look again. I didn't criticize you, just your persona. There are consonances in how personas like yours are drawn and respond to a persona like, say, Harry Bradley's, and in contrast to those like Brad Warner's.
ReplyDeleteI disagree about the fool. The fool is made, constructed, written. That is why your nature and my nature are sometimes called 'no nature'. The more we realise this, the less friction we feel when entering the game. Certain cultural theories describe a 'symbolic order' and attempt to grapple with its 'signlessness'. It is through this context that I addressed your claims to authority. They don't have to be 'claimed' overtly. That was a literalistic side-step you made (you did the same with 'the cold') because I tugged the author's tail; the one who fashions a view, the one thrown into the world of signs and attempts to take command, appear in control - a learnt and a given. To call the claim to authority a teenager is a claim to authority from the standpoint of parent.
Why did I inject myself? It's fun to play daddy (said mommy), and I'm a sucker for such brazen invitations. Why here? I like popping round to read An3drew's poems, and some of your droppings looked they'd ripened enough for a game of pong.
Ah contraire, if you think I respond better to scolding from some pseudonym, you missed the mark.
DeleteI can see your points while disagreeing with your prognosis (which, by the way, was a prescription for me, not my persona).
Ultimately, I'm not interested in the kabuki theater of personas, nor should anyone be. Read other things I've written, drop me a line, whatever. The door is always open; I've nothing to protect.
You're right about my sidestepping, but if I don't agree completely with your premise, why not let the breeze through? I stand by my assessment of Mr.Warner, even if my mode of communicating wasn't clear enough. And as to what I 'ought to do', like I said, I'm not responsive to a stranger who has peeked at a few of my droppings.
Lower the persona and find a way to meet, or not. Otherwise, we're flinging droppings at eachother on someone else's lawn.
I do my share of flinging, and despite what you may think, my intentions are to help others (and myself!) toward more clarity. I know I often miss the mark, and I see that this kind of communication on the internet becomes draining and pointless.
Most people are content with kabuki theater. How about you, Nan Saph?
You responded to the scolding strategy as I expected, which holds neither disappointment nor satisfaction, but is of interest.
ReplyDelete'Persona', 'I', 'me', 'you', indicate the constructed/constructing fictions; the play of 'a dream within a dream' if you like your Dogen.
Over the years, I've found myself less interested in voices agreeing with my premises. That's akin to sportsmen agreeing on the outcome of a game before playing. After the first blush of self-validation, little is learned and even less fun.
'Lower the persona'? Not in a quazillion epochs can it do so, kiddo! Perhaps allow it manifest in its fullness, sloughing skin after skin.
'Most people are content with kabuki theater. How about you, Nan Saph?'
'Most people' is as stupid as those assessments of Mr Warner and others, which departed from evidence and displayed little understanding, or even sufficient attention to what was written, by him or those others. How can you begin to see 'kabuki theater' or Nan Saph while sleeping walking?
Take care with that PR about your intentions, especially the stinker of 'helping others'. Certain practices can help uncover ones intentions and how the become syphoned. There's another intention which we can allow to develop, but that's where I should shut up.