"Stop thinking..."

It makes more sense if you do. Since we humans analyze things by thinking, this particular piece was very confusing, but when you stop and DON'T think, it slowly starts to make a modicum of sense. Further non doing would probably help one understand these things better.

A quote from the Stephen Mitchell Tao Te Ching, Tidbit 47 states that "The more you know, the less you understand." I think it describes the chapter from Modern Buddhist Bible quite well.

Using your senses?

I think that if what I understood from this passage is right, then I agree with some of it. It's not fully developed in my brain, so I'm having trouble wording my interpretations... The following may sound confusing, however: The idea that we need to keep our minds open to things that seem illogical, when it comes to existence, makes sense to me. Why? I think that the example of atomic and subatomic matter being discovered and scrutinized was some good evidence that we limit ourselves to absolutes, when we should be allowing for more investigation. We probably do this in more ways than we know.

Does the idea of subatomic particles still seem illogical now that they've been proven to exist? Why were they questioned in the first place? Was there simply no evidence supportive of the idea?

Love is illogical. Isn't it?
I don't think that western philosophies utilize only the logic of sensory findings a as source of verification. How does faith fit into that category? In fact...I would guess that almost every philosophy relies on some form of illogical reasoning or a way of thinking that is hard for us to process at this current time. Faith is based on both logic and illogic. Human actions and reactions are good examples of this. We all do stupid things right? Generally I would think that there is some reason deep down for every action that we take. Would you agree? Let me use Jesus as an example again. The actions of Jesus are illogical. He is perfect and we are not. He accepted our imperfections onto himself so that we would have a chance to be free from them. Why did he do this? And not only that, but how did it work?
If you are a parent, or ever plan to be one, or think that you understand them somewhat, (as I think that I do), then would you agree with me that their actions are often illogical? Some parents would die for their children's sake. Some parents would even do this if their children absolutely despised them. But why? Do you think that it's part of their genetic programming? Perhaps. But it still seems an illogical thing to do, especially as far as the idea of self-preservation flies.
My point is that not only buddhism, but probably all philosophies include some form of illogical thinking and being open to outside possabilities. But I do think that our brain is a tool that we've been given to help us understand our existence, and therefore a combination of logic and illogic is necessary.

One cannot be logical with their emotions...

I found myself getting extremely confused while reading this passage, and the only thing that really stuck was the notion that some things are impossible to explain in words. I agree with this. Words just confuse things, and they are very limiting in their meanings. I like this idea of abandoning ordinary images and language in order to see the truth.

It took me a while, but I finally found a comparison that I could understand and attempt to explain.

Emotions.

Emotions are basically impossible to put into words. Sure, you can say that you're happy, sad, frustrated, disappointed, or intrigued, but those words rarely reveal how you are really feeling. If you assign a single word to what you are feeling, you'll never understand emotions. Emotions are usually a combination, anyways. Only by experiencing emotion, can you truly understand them. You can study happiness forever, but you'll never truly understand it, unless you experience it. (Which is partly the reason why self-help books make me laugh.) You can only see truth if you don't categoize or try to name your emotions. It may look like anger, smell like anger, and taste like anger, but it's really something completely different that we don't have a word for. Anger over losing a sports game is different than the anger of a friend stabbing you in the back. Love for a friend is different than love for your partner or love for your car, yet we find it necessary to assign a single word to these completely different feelings. Language is very limiting. This is where the paradoxes discussed in Fritjof Capra comes into play. Emotions can be extremely contradictory if they are attempted to be explained in words.

One cannot be logical with their emotions.

One cannot be logical with buddhism, either.

Picture from: http://waa.uwalumni.com/onwisconsin/fall01/emotional1.html

Buddhism and physics?

I never thought physics could be related to Buddhism. ..but I guess anything is possible.

here's a video I found explaining the relationship between science & Buddhism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj_i7YqDwJA

I found this chapter to be confusing at first, but after I read a little further I understood what Capra was trying to say.

I think the main concept he is trying to get through is that language can only explain so much. The true meaning and explanation of some things can only be found through reality, not language or logic.

Capra mentions the Tao Te Ching and how it can be extremely difficult and puzzling to read. He also mentions that it is very contradicting. It is just one example of how eastern philosophy makes us think much deeper into things, forgetting about logic & reasoning.

Zen Buddhists teach nonverbally through senseless riddles called koans. These riddles are used to make students aware of the nonverbal understanding of reality. They are not meant to be solved using logic, however they are to be "understood in awareness of reality".

pic: zenartrebel.com

Selfish digression

I feel like I am weaving this Maypole with the same damn ribbon every time...a mangled metaphor, but no matter the pattern I am pretty sure I keep returning to one argument. Maybe the argument is something I should abandon in order to really absorb these principles, but I can't help but feel that the contentment I derive from the way I conduct my life (in a very general sense) does not align with the revered emptiness of the readings. In short, I am always grateful to feel that hollow peace of selflessness- it does absorb me quite frequently, especially in solitude or when walking long distances. But I am also very fond of the immediate heat and color I draw from inhabiting my self without striving to alter that. I am very appreciative of the quiet hovering peace of the Eastern thought we are contemplating, but it is not a state that I choose to seek. When it happens upon me, I am glad to find it again. And when it is gone, I am glad to embrace the mess and noise and struggle of the self. For me, there is comfort in the healing process. And if nothing is harmed, there is nothing to heal, and therefore nothing to seek. The Way can be blatant and brash, as long as you take it for what it is, and have your eyes Open.

Flickering nobility

Merriam-Webster lists several definitions for the word "noble," but the one that always prickled me is "possessing, characterized by, or arising from superiority of mind or character or of ideals or morals." Nobility is an aspect of Eastern philosophy that does not resonate with me, though I believe that I understand the mindset behind it. It is indeed hard to do evil or be driven to indulgent excess if you have no attachment, but to me there is always the feeling that detachment is an easy way out. I am certain that this argument has been addressed by Eastern philosophers and scholars in the past, and I am not trying to advocate for wanton immersion in earthly distraction. But I do believe you cannot have balance without plunging into extremes from time to time. I do not think it negates your self-awareness to live shallowly at times, just as a contemplative state will not bar you from enjoying yourself. Nobility, I feel, need not be a constant condition.
As far as the belief that life is suffering is concerned...I have never felt this to be true. I believe that suffering is intrinsic to the journey all living beings undertake, but I do not believe that it defines our existence. Indeed, there is no need to define existence in such a broad scope. Suffering tempers happiness, joy wears down the jagged edges of hardship. To steep too long in one "truth" is a course that will never interest me...I am too intrigued by the other facets of possibility.

Presentation Schedule

2.11 - Wayne - Feng Sui
2.16 - Garreth - Nature Observation and Zen
2.18 - Alicia - 8-Limbs; 5-Branches of Yoga
2.23 - Lara - Karma
2.25 - Annica - Zen and Music
3.2 - Katie - Zen and Scuba
3.4 - Hannah - I Ching
3.23 - Sonja - Zen Woodworking
3.25 - Becca - Zen Dancing
3.30 - Olivia - Sand Mandalas
4.1 - Ed - Mongul Philosophy and Fractals
4.6 - Jaime - Reiki
4.8 - Gavin - Mythology or Meditation
4.13 - Mike - Landscape Painting or Tai Chi
4.15 - Dan - Chi Kung
4.20 - Sam - Eastern influence on Stone Masonry
4.22 - Matt - Charles Bukowski
4.27 - Bill - Zen Tea