Evolving past bashing styles, systems and schools.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Finally, a good response! Thank you Taiji Monkey.

Actually, I think this is a better use of this forum.

However, while your boss might have a point, it falls into a form of intellectual quicksand that can result in knowing nothing - which is the point I guess...

But, like it or not, these stories and parables have meanings passed on for generations. They serve as guideposts, if you will. Pointing towards the next steps on the road, and do actually have a consistent meaning and interpretation. That is the point of a parable.

Poetry may deserve your bosses interpretation, but applying that to the parable is perhaps a misunderstanding of what your boss means.

Nontheless, I would still counter that TWS interpretation is so far off base, and creates a rather misguided line of thinking, that it could be called incorrect. Even in the arena of Zen.

[Christopher M]

MonkeySlap is just perpetuating the patriarchal hegemony of modernism. Solidarity forever!

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

MST.

Discussing things like Zen via the net is not a good idea in my opinion, I prefer face to face discussions as misunderstandings are easier avoided.

Also busy reading another interesting discission about kongo Zen on another forum and if it is a religion or not, etc.

[The Willow Sword]

I really do wish you well , but why do you continue to insult me in a passive aggressive way? Do you have some personal problem with me MST? Are you so convinced that YOU are "Right" and "Correct" and that i am wrong? I mean fine if thats the way you feel but it is only an opinion that you have, and you seem to be overstating that you do not agree with me, it is getting a tad aggravating, i will be honest about that.

any other problems you have with me,MST, you can certainly pm me and we can discuss it further, away from these forums and in a civil manner.
Peace,,,TWS

[Ralphie]

tws,

I will say that you bring so much into this parable that is not there, I have to say again intent is one thing interpretation is another.

a haughty and arrogant person decides to challenge another based on what he thinks is going to be an easy win.

In fact it's never clear why he challenges the master, unless I'm missing something.

the person being challenged is just trying to go about his way,,so he humbly confronts the challenger after seeking advice of someone of the same caliber as the challenger( but not as arrogant or haughty).

Really? or is it that the 3rd person points out that someone who has acheived a high level of self mastery sees no difference between actions weather pouring tea or using a sword.

he there fore confronts the challenger as a friend and raises his sword, which can be intepreted as a raising of awareness, or even a raising of ones spirit in the face of this fear to over come it.

Who would raise a sword in friendship? He's a teamaster, no? Why would he need to raise his awareness? Isn't it already complete? Why would he be afraid, when he is not conflicted? He raises his sword like he pours the tea, with a single purpose. That is stated in the parable. No interpretation necessary.

and what was the end result? he did NOT have to fight. He defeated the challenger without having to resort to the violence

He was never violent, the conflict was never from him, and the challenger was the only one who was fighting. His own nature did him in. The tea master did not change through the story. Only the ronin did.

but to say that the other is mis intepreting because he feels HE is right and the other is wrong? that is arrogant presumption,,thats ego. thats the haughty and unscrupulous Ronin.

I actually never mentioned misinterpretation, only intent and interpretation. Arrogance seems to be more your problem. I never added how I "feel" about this story. It is what it is. There are some loaded cultural things related to the tale, but the story itself is pretty straight forward. The ronin is weak in his ignorance , but is humbled when he is confronted with what is sure to be his death should he pursue it.

Or it could by you're
the righteous man and I'm the
shepherd and it's the world that's
evil and selfish. I'd like that.
But that **** ain't the truth. The
truth is you're the weak. And I'm
the tyranny of evil men. But I'm
tryin'. I'm tryin' real hard to be
a shepherd.

[MonkeySlap Too]

TWS - I have no problem with you. I just think you are wrong in your interpretation of this parable. So wrong, it is staggering. This is not a judgement of you as a person, but a debate about an intellectual position you have taken.

I know my 'style' is assertive, and can be interpreted by some as abrasive. Please understand it is not my intention to hurt your feelings, simply to state the situation.

If I could be so bold - I know your intentions are good. I've actually spoken to you. I beleive that. But IF you choose to position yourself as a teacher of wisdom as well as fighting - go seek out some wise teachers.

[MonkeySlap Too]

Ralphie - well said. You have done a much better job of detailing than I have, as I flip back and forth from my work...

[Merryprankster]

I really do wish you well , but why do you continue to insult me in a passive aggressive way? Do you have some personal problem with me MST? Are you so convinced that YOU are "Right" and "Correct" and that i am wrong? I mean fine if thats the way you feel but it is only an opinion that you have, and you seem to be overstating that you do not agree with me, it is getting a tad aggravating, i will be honest about that.

I suspect that MST is not really directing this AT you per se, but rather at the framework around which you are constructing your part of the debate. He is having a common reaction that those of us with at least some background in philosophy/rhetoric/logic have to the current trend in popular modern thought, which can be summed as follows:

"All arguments (in the rhetorical use of the word) are logically equivalent and therefore have equal rhetorical merit."

The above is sheer intellectual laziness borne, in my opinion, of a misunderstanding about Phenomenalism mixed with *******ized Existential tendencies. It is quite aggravating. It eliminates intelligent conversation, denies validity to the concept of judgment and allows morons to think they've just trumped the debate (although they phrase it rather less elegantly). Instructors used to laugh these people out of prep schools and college. Unfortunately, now, they graduate, gain access to the internet, and maintain conspiracy theorist websites.

Obviously, the concept of Cognitive Relativism was around long before Phenomenalism and Existentialism, but these two beasties rebirthed it.

For those who give a swut: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/cog-rel.htm

[The Willow Sword]

You are personalizing my comments after your post as if they were meant specifically for you. and they were not.

Peace,,TWS

[MonkeySlap Too]

TJM - PM me the thread on Kongo Zen - now THAT sounds like fun...Love the Sonny Chiba movie about Doshin So.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by MonkeySlap Too
TJM - PM me the thread on Kongo Zen - now THAT sounds like fun...Love the Sonny Chiba movie about Doshin So.

Your Inbox is full, details below:

http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/show...threadid=22607

It is part of a long-ongoing discussion that has spread across forums.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Instructors used to laugh these people out of prep schools and college. Unfortunately, now, they graduate, gain access to the internet, and maintain conspiracy theorist websites.

Really unfortunately, they graduate and fill faculty and review board positions.

[Christopher M]

That meaning is constructed and intentional doesn't mean it's relative.

If cultural contexts change intended meaning, it doesn't mean there was no intended meaning to begin with.

"I know it is the fashion to say that most of recorded history is lies anyway. I am willing to believe that history is for the most part inaccurate and biased, but what is peculiar to our own age is the abandonment of the idea that history could be truthfully written. In the past people deliberately lied, or they unconsciously coloured what they wrote, or they struggled after the truth, well knowing that they must make many mistakes; but in each case they believed that "facts" existed and were more or less discoverable. And in practice there was always a considerable body of fact which would have been agreed to by almost everyone. ... It is just this common basis of agreement, with its implication that human beings are all one species of animal, that totalitarianism destroys. Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as "the truth" exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as "Science". There is only "German Science", "Jewish Science", etc. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, "It never happened"--well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five--well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs -- and after our experiences of the last few years that is not a frivolous statement."
- George Orwell (qtd from Carveth).

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by TAO YIN
everything is [relative].

So 2+2=5 is as legitimate as 2+2=4? I don't think so; and I suspect you don't either.

if we cannot see the earth move does that mean it doesnt move?

If we could see the earth move, would "the earth doesn't move" be as legitimate a description of the world as anything else? I don't think so; and I suspect you don't either.

But we can infer that the earth moves very consistently and objectively. So is "the earth doesn't move" as legitimate a description of our observations as anything else? I don't think so; and I suspect you don't either.

the monk who lived in that cultural context had a meaning all his own.

Absolutely. Which is precisely why not all statements about his remarks are equal, right?

[Lowlynobody]

2+2 = 5 is legitimate as long as they are symbles or objects on a monitor. Once you apply it to reality and see that when you get 2 of one thing and add 2 more and you realise you have 4 you see what is in reality legitimate. Though that reality is based on a perception that is derived from experiance and the imprint of other's perception upon your own. If everyone in the world knew that 2 + 2 = 5 would the one person in the world who knew that 2 + 2 = 4 be legitimatly correct?