Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00125)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Dallas TenBroeck" <dalval14@e...> 
wrote:
> Too many "religions" are based on "blind faith" and you trust
> me" -- for me to accept anything I can't first understand.

I don't know what you are talking about, but Mauri was referring to 
Zen, which is not a religion in the sense that people usually thinl. 
There is nothing to believe, and no dogmas.

> How do we know that we are better for the experience, if and when
> we emerge?

The experience is life itself. It is hard to see how you can be 
better for not living, but that is what most people do.

> You mention the fact that Zen rejects dry, lifeless
> philosophizing

Suzuki is the one who said that, and so does everyone else I know. 
The point of the metaphor I offered is to help you see what Suzuli 
was getting at, which I think his choice of words tends not to help 
people do.

> As a matter of fact
> the etymology of the word Zen relates it to DZYAN, GNANA,
> GNYANA, DJANA, etc... all meaning WISDOM,. and derived from
> the Sanskrit word.

Dhyana does not refer to intellectual knowledge but to concentration, 
which in its most intense form is seedless, being focused on 
penetrating the Mystery which divides us from the direct experience 
of reality (Tathata).

> To me, Theosophy presents explanations.

No contest there. My point was that eating ice cream is not the same 
as reading books about it.

> If it were lifeless then I would agree with you,

You mean you would agree with Suzuki. I do not consdier philosopy to 
be lifeless.

> In this case who else has done any of the evaluating?

I don't understand. Evaluate what? Most people spend their loves 
running away from reality, which is why the sages pointed us toward 
it. Continuing to run away and intellectualizing about it is mmore 
sophisticated than what most folks do, but it is not in any way 
preferable. In this case wr are referring to Mindfulness and not to 
kundalini yoga or Tantric energy practice, which some people have 
been injured doing, usually by mixing and matching techniques from 
different systems. Now that eergy work is not secret, it is possible 
for people to injure themselves doing the very thing which motivated 
the secrecy in the first place, which is inappropriately combining 
techniques from different systems. Mindfulness, though, is just 
being in the moment as intensely as possible from moment to moment, 
which causes boredom to totally disappear. Life can become 
infinitely more exasperating at times when you are Mindful, but you 
are no longer running away from life. (That may bt the reason HPB 
was so bitchy.) The good parts become far more exquisite, and mt 
teacher told us that on the last day of our lives we would live that 
day to fullest extent humanly possible, even if we spent it drinking 
a single cup of tea. The ultimate point, of course, is that when the 
moment of Enlightenment comes, which it does to everyone, we are in 
the moment and in the experience as totally as possible instead ofoff 
daydreaming about some irrelevant bit of flapdoodle.

> Why is the "mind" and the "philosophical" approach derided or
> minimized?

Ask Suzuki. I just said what I said. One eats the ice cream and the 
other goes to lectures about what the stuff must taste like nased on 
what the lecturer read ina book without actually applying his tongue 
to any of it. The statement is self evident. You can go to all the 
lectures you want, but until you sink in your teeth you have not 
lived the experience. You can continue to read books about all forty-
seven flavors for all I care. My point is just to elucidate the 
difference.

Incidentally, it is quite easy for someone who has actually tasted to 
recognize authors who have merely theorized. There are loads of 
books out there by people who don't have any idea in the world what 
they are talking about, and the joke's on them because some of us can 
catch them in the act.

It may be a difficult point to get. If you ponder the metaphor I 
gave you I think it will come to you eventually. I also think a 
homely metaphor, stripped of the florid language Suzuki uses, could 
be more effective for some people in "getting it" than risking 
getting distracted by the stuff he mentions, even though he said what 
he said very well IMO. To some people, Suzuli's more literary 
description may better convey the thought. To each his own.

Gassho