jundo cohen wrote:
But so many of the teachers that we cherish, while highly educated, wrote pages and pages waving us away from standard intellectualization as a dead end and distraction. Useful, of course, for getting around in the world. An obstruction to the heart of the matter. One can sit here and philosophize all one wants on "the place of intellectualization in Zen". However, if one then scoffs at the anti-intellectual aspect of Zen, and the thinking non thinking aspect ... then it is like saying, "please discuss apple pie without mentioning pie or apples". Something vital ... perhaps the most vital to a discussion of Zen ... is left out.
Not only did I not scoff at the anti-intellectual aspect of it, but as Cone alluded to, that aspect is actually shared by others systems, including areas of Vajrayana and Dzogchen. If you notice, I have not scoffed a bit at Zen, and mentioned in fact that I not only hold it in high regard, but maintain interest it in, and consider my time in it valuable.
What I am taking issue with (not scoffing at) is *your* misappropriation of "Zen style" to not answer questions. This has nothing to do with a "Zen method" (the idea that there is such an orthodox way of being non-orthodox is kind of funny to me personally) of answering questions, and everything to do you with your
It's like you feel compelled to come in here, and then try to use Zen style non-talk (or whatever you want to call it) as a way to escape needing to answer questions in normal language, or to repeatedly point out how someone else "just doesn't get it". Why do you need to do that at all? I'd point out here, these question arose due to your criticism of others words, and your refusal to lend that criticism any clarity
So let's be clear, that
and that alone is what I'm taking issue with here, not Zen practice or method, which I both have deep respect for, and in fact some connection to - whether you want to accept it or not.
"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”