= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
abigailgem comments on The First Koan: Drinking the Hot Iron Ball - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (51)
I value koans as an exercise. I am not sure whether this makes me "enlightened", or whether I have a "better" way of understanding than anyone else, merely that I have valued the experience.
I have struggled like that. It seems from the inside like I have come out the other side of that struggle, better able to be in the World.
Only if you believe that to be the case. To use a Less Wrong image, only if you are not Winning.
You have much to learn. The Zen that can be accurately criticized is not the true Zen.
Just like a Westerner to paraphrase Taoism when commenting on Zen.
I'm a Zen Taoist -- I worship an unspeakable shapeless void that doesn't exist.
That sounds like the No True Scotsman fallacy to me.
The source of existence does not itself exist. The necessary precondition for a property can never possess that property itself.
This would be clearer if you could explicitly state what you mean when you assert that something exists, but I very strongly suspect you can't do so. (You're hardly alone in this, so it's no particular shame if it's the case.) I could of course be mistaken.
I do not define "enlightened", claim to be enlightened, claim that you are less "enlightened", or say that you would be in any way better if you tried koans, or better if you wanted to try koans. I only said I had found them valuable.
I do not define "enlightened", because it is something which I only, as it were, gain the odd glimpse, from my peripheral vision. If I define "enlightenment", that means I place it in a box, make my understanding of it concrete. If I did, that would make it more difficult for me to gain in understanding of what "enlightenment" means, because I do not see the bits which go beyond my definition.
For over two thousand years, people have been using koans, and finding them valuable. Though I am not Buddhist, I tell you that I find them valuable too. I do not ask you to value them, but you might consider them a bit more before dismissing them.
I recommend "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!" (can't remember the author, discussing some Buddhist ideas from an atheist, fairly rationalist standpoint. It is out of print but should be available on Abe Books.
I have somewhat more respect for the substance of your views than for the intemperate and largely counterproductive ways in which you choose to express them.
Well, no. It could equally well be considered relative to mine. As it happens, I was guessing (perhaps wrongly) at an approximate community utility function. Based on previous evidence, this seemed to have a negative term for potentially inflammatory language that is unnecessary to making the commenter's substantive point.
I said, "only if you believe that to be the case". By "that", I intended to refer to the belief that [thinking the post is worthless means that you are unenlightened].
This is thinking in rigid categories. "All people who do not value koans are unenlightened". I do not really know what "enlightenment" is, but that false view is unenlightened.