The Ineffable En(eff)abling the Ineffable
When buddhas sit in the full lotus posture, their practice is the manifestation in reality of what?
In this blog I have stated my case that the Subtle Skill of the buddhas has something to do with what is called in Alexander work "allowing." But have I explained what allowing is? No, because allowing is ineffable.
I have quoted Master Dogen's words that the criterion of true allowing is the samadhi of accepting and using the self. But the self also is ineffable
In regard to what is allowed, I have written about the allowing of openness. But the word "openness" is just the manifestation of the deluded attempts of my intellect to close its grip upon the ineffable.
So in the end what is it?
Should we call it "the ineffable en(eff)abling the ineffable"?
No, not even that. Not even that.
In this blog I have stated my case that the Subtle Skill of the buddhas has something to do with what is called in Alexander work "allowing." But have I explained what allowing is? No, because allowing is ineffable.
I have quoted Master Dogen's words that the criterion of true allowing is the samadhi of accepting and using the self. But the self also is ineffable
In regard to what is allowed, I have written about the allowing of openness. But the word "openness" is just the manifestation of the deluded attempts of my intellect to close its grip upon the ineffable.
So in the end what is it?
Should we call it "the ineffable en(eff)abling the ineffable"?
No, not even that. Not even that.
posted by Mike Cross at 11:34 AM
3 Comments:
We struggle in vain in our hope to put the word on "it" for which there is no word, no thought- especially in this forum where we try to do so in short articles or comments on articles by written words alone with no faces behind them- no real human interaction.
Yet, of course, we will continue. We cannot hope to hit the very center of the target, yet we let our arrows fly. We can only learn from others how to draw the bow.
Maybe Nishijima's "balancing the autonomic nervous system" and your "ineffable En(eff)abling the Ineffable" are the same attempts at teaching others to come close to the target and I am grateful to be able to try to absorb both. Much thanks.
Yet it seems of little use to compare who's shot was the truer as in the end we must forget all- "bow, arrow, target"...
JZD- I wish you could elaborate. Nishijima seems unphased by criticism. I, for one, think I know what you mean. Realize that there is a generation gap as well as a cultural and language barrier, though. Unfortunately this leads to some very wide interpretations.
I believe he's aiming at describing a physical state that occurs when body and mind have no distinction or the state of samdhi I suppose. I just do not understand his point in doing so. Maybe reconciling science and Buddhism. Of course I could be misinterpreting. I just believe his intent is rather the same as mike's- attempting words to describe the indescribable...
Hey Mike,
there's been a mass deleting of comments on nishijima's blog LOL
i got pretty whacked out over there and said some seriously crappy stuff. Looking back, I was responding only to the way stuff was said, none of my comments even related really to the content of your posts. That's pretty embarrassing to realize what an itchy trigger finger i can have over something that really wasn't of much consequence. I obviously came to these blogs by way of association with one faction and am certainly not making anyone look good, especially myself, or being at all constructive.
I apologize for being intentionally antagonistic and rude. I think we all like to think we're not like that, and I would hate to sabotage any kind of relationships or dialogues that could come from the wonder that is blogging. I think we know how horrible disputes among spiritual factions can be. So I'm sorry again, and I wish you luck on your path.
Take care,
matt
Post a Comment
<< Home