[QUOTE=Skip J.;1000068]Well said Scott!
This is the perfect instance of the difficulty of translating words across cultural boundaries…[/QUOTE]
Thanks Skip!
It is actually a bit more complicated than that though. It is not just cross-culture we are dealing with here, but a huge difference in historical time. Most of the salient texts on Ch’an, and Buddhism in general, are 1,000-2,000 years old.
The context of the teachings, then, can be very easily misunderstood because we not only interpret teachings according to our culture, but also according to our historical perspective which is greatly affected by our modern education level as well.
More people are literate now than were literate 1,000-2,500 years ago. Our knowledge base is also PROFOUNDLY deeper.
We know about germs, and infra-red/ultra-violet light, the laws of physics, planetary movements, etc. We understand what affects and causes weather, earthquakes, eclipses and lightning and thunder! All this general knowledge affects the way we view life and the universe in general. It also changes the way we communicate with each other concerning our direct experiences. We have a perspective on life they could not imagine 1,000-2,500 years ago.
So when reading anything written 1,000-2,500 years ago, Buddha lived about 2,500 years ago, Hui-Neng about 1,300 years ago, we must also consider the knowledge base they were working within, as well as the cultural context, of their comments and actions.
This is why individuals are encouraged, within Ch’an, to investigate directly for themselves. When we understand according to the texts, we understand based upon what others have said, we “believe”, but when we have direct experience we no longer “believe”, we “know”.
It is similar to a person writing a text on the taste of an orange. A reader, who has never tasted an orange, will only have a “belief” in what an orange tastes like according to what he understands from the text. But the person will “know” what an orange tastes like when he finally eats one for himself. When the orange is tasted directly the individual will compare the actual experience with what he read about it. In some cases he will think, “Ohhhhh! THAT is what he, the author, meant!” concerning some specific detail. While concerning other details he might think, “No! I don’t agree with that!”
The individual who has just tasted an orange for the first time, will have a different perspective than a person who has eaten hundreds or thousands of oranges. And, of course, each individual will communicate their direct experience of the taste of an orange slightly differently. Some may like the taste, some may dislike it. Some will wax poetic about the taste of an orange, some may paint a picture, while others will be more objective or scientific in their manner of communicating their direct experience.
The same experience will be represented differently by each person who communicates their direct experience to others, but there will remain, in general, some common themes.
Once again, that is why any depiction, description, gesture, etc is only pointing the way and NOTHING ELSE! It is an experience we must each have for ourselves.
And this is why my constant disagreements with Hendrik occur. He “presumes”, he “speculates”, concerning what he “believes” are my own experiences and is repeatedly in error. I know what my direct experiences are, he does not.
Now concerning his preconceived concept of “silence”:
I entered into this state some 30 years ago, I have had the direct experience more than once, and I may have the experience again, any time I choose. I know what I am talking about because I have had the direct experience. That experience was also confirmed by what I have read concerning this experience “since” then. I did not read about “silence” and then fantasized my way into believing I have had it. I was not instructed by a “teacher” about it and then conformed my experience to what I was “taught” it was “supposed” to be like.
I have had the experience “directly”, and I report what I KNOW about the “direct” experience to others. Take it or leave it, however I can state as a fact of the matter, according to MY OWN direct experience:
THERE IS NO SILENCE! Yet at the same time it is “like” silence. The best way to describe it is “Silence of non-Silence” or “Silent and yet not silent at the same time”, or some other such description.
Thoughts do NOT cease, one has thoughts and does not have thoughts at the same time. The world system does not disappear. You are in the world and yet not in it at the same time. It is a state of non-attachment, that is all. One is not bound to thoughts or silence or being, or the world system. None of these disappear, they are both there and not there in a manner that may be imagined but cannot be understood until one has the direct experience for themselves.
And quite frankly…it is no big deal either!!! You may take it or leave it as you like. You might even think in disbelief…“This is IT?” THIS is what the big deal was all about?"
Which, once again, is why Buddha said he did not attain a single thing when he became enlightened.
Someone once asked D. T. Suzuki what enlightenment was like. He responded, “Pretty much just the same as everyday life, only about 5 inches off the ground!” It is the same, but different! No big deal!
