Is there not a “truth”?

[[james]]

If's it's true (what I have expressed), then it's not superficial.

That's the thing. What's superficial if that you still think there is a truth. We have to let that go as well. Otherwise, we stink of Zen.

Letting go of one’s belief/position/certainty that there is a truth does not alter the possibility of truth beyond the letting go.
Is there truth?

[Pablo]

Is there truth?

I leave that to philosophers. It has no relevance for my practice.

[Anders]

Letting go of one’s belief/position/certainty that there is a truth does not alter the possibility of truth beyond the letting go.
Is there truth?

I'm reminded of the xin xin ming:

No need to seek the real;
Just extinguish your views.

I think when it's comes to things like truth viz a viz views in practice, it is, oddly enough, important to psychologise the issue and ask ourselves what is the actual effect of talking about "truth beyond views".

Myself I am not so sure it makes sense to have a notion of a truth we will arrive at once we go beyond views. If you have that, then you also have a platform for the continued nourishment of views.

[desert_woodworker]

A "truth"?

At (and after... ) awakening, we will (all) see. Don't delay ...to set in place ...the enabling influences... .

Meanwhile, it's hopelessly theoretical to harp on this,without the background of sufficient and correct practice.

But, I'd say, "No", there is not "a truth". CERTAINLY not.

There is, however, a way of being:

A way of being in which true-Wisdom and true-Compassion arise simultaneously and spontaneously in seamless response to events and beings, just as they happen, or present themselves, ...while there is Emptiness, no movement of mind, and no self. This awakened condition takes considerable good fortune after and during and during and after correct practice with teacher and sangha. It lasts, but usually evaporates after an interval, but can be re-entered, given good luck and good effort.

As I see it and experience it,

--Joe

[Dan74]

Views may indeed be provisional, but speaking up can be a very good thing. More often than not, though, it isn't.

And as a general rule I agree with Anders that it can be useful 'to psychologise' and ask 'what does this serve'? Simply because it seems to me that spiritual bypassing is rife and goes unchecked.

[Pablo]

Thanks for the reminder, Dan

[Dan74]

TBH, one of the things I puzzle over is why many folks post short 'zennie' answers (I don't mean so much here, but in all kinds of Zen places online) rather than a heartfelt personal reply.. I confess I fall into the same trap lately, kinda conforming unconsciously to these perceived expectations. But the reality of my life is not a smooth abstraction, anything but.. What about you?

[Pablo]

TBH, one of the things I puzzle over is why many folks post short 'zennie' answers (I don't mean so much here, but in all kinds of Zen places online) rather than a heartfelt personal reply.. I confess I fall into the same trap lately, kinda conforming unconsciously to these perceived expectations. But the reality of my life is not a smooth abstraction, anything but.. What about you?

I also fall into that trap: instead of looking inwards to find what's here, and then share it, I hide between fancy words. Thank you for checking us

In my case, it took a good teacher (bless Jeff) to make me see that waving cute words around wasn't going to do me or anyone else any help. Jeff calls it "performance Zen", and it features a lot in Boshan's Exhortations, written in China in the 17th century, so it is hardly a new problem. I guess that comes with the poetry. And I guess that's why Dahui burnt his copy of the Blue Cliff Record. Bless him.

When I started studying with Jeff, barely 4 years ago, I thought that the point was to be able to answer to the questions during the one-on-one (dokusan / sanzen) with the teacher. Ah, if only I could get the perfect reply to "What is lacking?". How foolish! The point of this practice is to understand what it is that makes us suffer, let it go, and then apply that in the real world to walk with others. How can we glibly exchange empty words, when suffering surrounds us? How can we be so insensitive?

In this sense, I like the question Meido asks in the last chapter of his book: "Have I been a good practitioner today?" It is a good check.

[desert_woodworker]

No truth, no; but a way of being, yes.

It takes sufficient and correct practice.

(just to reiterate)

--Joe

[[james]]

Is there truth?

I leave that to philosophers. It has no relevance for my practice.

[[james]]

I'm reminded of the xin xin ming:

No need to seek the real;
Just extinguish your views.

Well, sure ... seeing the reality of my views is a basic factor in recognizing the real. In any case, seeking (and finding) the real will not make it any more or less real.

I think when it's comes to things like truth viz a viz views in practice, it is, oddly enough, important to psychologise the issue and ask ourselves what is the actual effect of talking about "truth beyond views".

I’m asking about truth irrespective of views, independent of conditions, nor arising from logic and thoughtful consideration. Does talking about truth separate one from truth?

Myself I am not so sure it makes sense to have a notion of a truth we will arrive at once we go beyond views. If you have that, then you also have a platform for the continued nourishment of views.

A notion of a truth is a view isn’t it?

[[james]]

Views may indeed be provisional, but speaking up can be a very good thing. More often than not, though, it isn't.

And as a general rule I agree with Anders that it can be useful 'to psychologise' and ask 'what does this serve'? Simply because it seems to me that spiritual bypassing is rife and goes unchecked.

What ...??

[[james]]

TBH, one of the things I puzzle over is why many folks post short 'zennie' answers (I don't mean so much here, but in all kinds of Zen places online) rather than a heartfelt personal reply.. I confess I fall into the same trap lately, kinda conforming unconsciously to these perceived expectations. But the reality of my life is not a smooth abstraction, anything but.. What about you?

The reality of your life is truth, is it not?
As for the rest of your post here, I don’t understand.

[[james]]

No truth, no; but a way of being, yes.

It takes sufficient and correct practice.

(just to reiterate)

--Joe

I’m reading your reiteration as a statement of truth as you see it.

[Dan74]

Views may indeed be provisional, but speaking up can be a very good thing. More often than not, though, it isn't.

And as a general rule I agree with Anders that it can be useful 'to psychologise' and ask 'what does this serve'? Simply because it seems to me that spiritual bypassing is rife and goes unchecked.

What ...??

Thanks for engaging, James.

In the first paragraph, I was trying to say that while we do change our views and hoepfully don't hold on to them too tight, I think it is incumbent on us to speak up on issues we care about. Too often, the thoughtful keep silent, while the superficial hog the limelight. But there does seem to be far too many unnecessary words all around, including from yours truly, so staying silent is often the best policy, IMO.

Then I meant that the kind of psychological awareness where one's own emotional states and motivations are fairly clear, is important. Many practitioners seem to be unaware of their egos, the harm they inflict on themselves and others, etc.

[Dan74]

TBH, one of the things I puzzle over is why many folks post short 'zennie' answers (I don't mean so much here, but in all kinds of Zen places online) rather than a heartfelt personal reply.. I confess I fall into the same trap lately, kinda conforming unconsciously to these perceived expectations. But the reality of my life is not a smooth abstraction, anything but.. What about you?

The reality of your life is truth, is it not?
As for the rest of your post here, I don’t understand.

Not sure which part you don't understand. I find 'zennie' answers often too abstract, coming as they typically are, from folks like you and me, who are not fully enlightened, who still struggle with their messy minds. To leave that out strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. Pablo put it well, I thought:

How can we glibly exchange empty words, when suffering surrounds us? How can we be so insensitive?

[desert_woodworker]

hiya, james,

No truth, no; but a way of being, yes.

It takes sufficient and correct practice.

(just to reiterate)

I’m reading your reiteration as a statement of truth as you see it.

You might or might not go wrong, then, because in so doing, you're making your own truth.

Best is to practice correctly and sufficiently, and, as Keith says, "see what happens". Then, let's talk. If we can.

Best is to leave "truth" off the table, as Buddha did. For him, it's (Awakening's... ) about Practice, not Philosophy.

Philosophy is an absolutely wonderful, enriching Art, but it is not salvific: it stirs and encourages the moving-mind, it does not support or reveal the mind of no-mind! It covers it, doesn't uncover it.

As I see it,

_/|\_ ,

--Joe

[[james]]

Not sure which part you don't understand. I find 'zennie' answers often too abstract, coming as they typically are, from folks like you and me, who are not fully enlightened, who still struggle with their messy minds. To leave that out strikes me as somewhat disingenuous.

People write, express from their understanding. Those who read what people write hear and interpret through their own understanding. Can it be otherwise? No one is “fully enlightened” and we all are working with our messy minds. It is not possible to leave that out.

If you came across a “zennie”-ism that you felt certain came from one who is fully awakened, would it be any less abstract? Likewise, if the zennie answer caught your attention yet came from one whom you felt to be a complete dolt, would you dismiss what was being said?

[[james]]

hiya, james,

hiya, Joe,

You might or might not go wrong, then, because in so doing, you're making your own truth.

“Be a light unto yourself; betake yourselves to no external refuge. Hold fast to the Truth. Look not for refuge to anyone besides yourselves.”

Best is to practice correctly and sufficiently, and, as Keith says, "see what happens”.

Are you talking to me or to the general audience here? Of course, I agree with your statement.

Best is to leave "truth" off the table, as Buddha did.

Did you miss the Four Noble Truths? I’m sure not so what do you mean?

For him, it's (Awakening's... ) about Practice, not Philosophy.

Maybe, I don’t know.

Philosophy is an absolutely wonderful, enriching Art, but it is not salvific: it stirs and encourages the moving-mind, it does not support or reveal the mind of no-mind! It covers it, doesn't uncover it.

A harmony of moving mind and no-mind rather than a segregation is what pulls me. A consideration of truth is not outside the framework of practice. I wouldn’t call it philosophy, myself.

As I see it,

_/|\_ ,

--Joe

We all see it

[Dan74]

Not sure which part you don't understand. I find 'zennie' answers often too abstract, coming as they typically are, from folks like you and me, who are not fully enlightened, who still struggle with their messy minds. To leave that out strikes me as somewhat disingenuous.

People write, express from their understanding. Those who read what people write hear and interpret through their own understanding. Can it be otherwise? No one is “fully enlightened” and we all are working with our messy minds. It is not possible to leave that out.

If you came across a “zennie”-ism that you felt certain came from one who is fully awakened, would it be any less abstract? Likewise, if the zennie answer caught your attention yet came from one whom you felt to be a complete dolt, would you dismiss what was being said?

The trouble that I see is that people often write for all sorts of reasons, other than to express their understanding, unless you mean "understanding" in a very broad sense, like the entire situation, their priorities in it, etc etc.

And yes, I am just sharing my take, not some alleged absolute. It's my perception, for what it's worth. My "understanding".