The Debate of God.

[Curious George]

Good so far. The vantage point I was referring to is an impersonal one.

Ah...good point, but that assumes that there is a self that becomes enlightened, and that consciousness is local. How about if, when maya dissolves, so does the idea of self, as the notion of self is also maya. When awakening occurs, it is realized that there was no one seeking it to begin with, nor anyone who has attained it. All along, there was only enlightenment itself, and the delusion that there was a self that was unenlightened. Nirvana means to extinguish. The false self is what is extinguished, leaving only what has always been from the beginning: the authentic Self, which is The Absolute itself; that which is Unborn and Deathless; that which does not become, and to which there is no 'other'.

It is for these reasons that we say that no one 'becomes' enlightened, but instead, that enlightenment is realized, meaning that everyone and everything is already in the state of enlightenment, but only fail to see it for the fact that it is.

The key here is that consciousness is non-local, rather than local.


So if that which is unenlightened is dissolved with the realization that itnever existed from the beginning, why would that which is unenlightened survive ala Ambiguous's statement, that he is both at once? In other words, it is also maya that we are unenlightened. It is part of the deception that the divine nature has concocted in order to forget itself, and plunge itself into Identification as a player in this world, fully convinced that it is indeed the character that it is playing in all seriousness, when, in fact, such character is pure fiction.


"Realization is getting rid of the delusion that you haven't realized."

Ramana Maharshi

Stay with me here-

There is no self. So, to speak to a concept of you and me would be erroneous. Now if we in part have realized enlightenment but in part are still under the sway of Maya we would at once be fully enlightened and not enlightened. So as long as part of us lives under the sway of Maya then we would see both perspectives. Moreover, our perspective from this authentic self would have a cumulative recognition of our past selves, thus rendering the obliteration of the unenlightened selves impossible. (Unless you are suggesting that retention of our past perspective is impossible. This, however, brings up the question: how can any enlightened soul understand Maya ever existed, since that knowledge is contingent on retention of a past perspective). Consequently, one cannot realize enlightenment without either self or without simultaneously being unenlightened.

Now, I realize the logical error the former depicts. Still, I refer to the concept that this seemingly illogical co-existence, appears only thus because of Maya. In this view, enlightenment itself is part of Maya. And as Maya dissolves from part of our Authentic self, then so to will the dualistic notion of the enlightened and the unenlightened.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

OK. I'll try again for awhile and see what happens.

How can these experiences be verified by others? Without getting into detail, they cannot by the ordinary person, but by those who have had the same experiences....

Sure. The Christian born-again experience can only be verified by those who have also had the born-again experience. But I still have some trouble with the claim that 'the born-again experience can be verified.' In my experience, the mind can easily fool us into believing just about anything it wants.

... by Zen Masters, for example, it can be so determined via of questioning and examination. Zen, for example, maintains frequent sessions between student and teacher to determine progress. This process has been likened to a mother hen and her unhatched chick. The mother hen listens to the egg, and knows when the chick is about to hatch via the sound of its pecking on the inside of the eggshell.

It's interesting that you use such an example. Do you think a chick may be influenced in its behaviors and beliefs by the behaviors and beliefs of the mother hen? Can a chick ever mature into something else, something more, than a Hen?

I don't think so. One must put mother hens and masters aside if one is ever to become unique.

Have you ever studied the phenomenon of false confessions? It's interesting how the interrogator can feed information to a suspect, such that the suspect can often give a credible confession, even though he actually knew nothing at all about the crime. Could such a thing happen between Teacher and Student?

I have spoken with Christians who make claims, such as that they 'saw the arm of Jesus', but in speaking with some of them further, it becomes painfully clear that it is their ego talking; that they make such claims as a way of appearing wise and 'chosen' to others.

Please forgive me for saying this, but from what I have seen so far of your own ego-involvement, I do not think you would be my first choice as a dispassionate judge of others and their motivations.

I also suspect anyone who make claims of being enlightened; enlightened people do not find it necessary or desirable to do so.

Well, unless I am the first or most-genuine Enlightened One you've met so far. In that case, you would have to judge the others as being in error... to withhold the news of their own Enlightenment.

See what I mean? See how our assumptions can be the ruler of our Truth?

They can make a mess of us as dispassionate judges.

 

[Curious George]

I don't mind being spoken to as if a curdog, but don't think my time is well-spent with people who speak to me as if a curdog.

I see myself as a cur dog, I owe to this lineage my thanks that I am, nor will be neither hen, nor fish, nor lion, nor snake, nor etc...

When people look on me, or speak toward me with condensation or derogation I accept that. For unlike the Buddha and the Kindergarten teacher I believe that despite facades I can learn from both.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I see myself as a cur dog, I owe to this lineage my thanks that I am, nor will be neither hen, nor fish, nor lion, nor snake, nor etc...

Curdogs only exist within the minds of those who give them name, I think.

When people look on me, or speak toward me with condensation or derogation I accept that.

Me, not so much. I haven't yet given up the idea that I might have an effect on the world. One mind at a time -- that can still create an effect.

For unlike the Buddha and the Kindergarten teacher I believe that despite facades I can learn from both.

Yeah, I can't remember meeting a person or a curdog who didn't teach me something -- though they've often done it in a fully unconscious way.

 

[cottage]

Do you ever (yes.... you do) read postings I make at this forum?

I don't believe in God because of scripture, congregation or fear of death.

I believe for the 'evidence' of the stars above, the earth and everything around me, and science that points the way.

Someone once said...'I think, therefore I am'.

God is not allowed to say..."I AM".....?
(let there be light)

Catching up with some responses…

To believe that God exists because of ‘the stars above’ and science etc is simply to believe-that there is a God, which is a belief that may be true or false. But in your case you believe-in God, and therefore your position is one of pure faith (you can’t logically believe-in God and at the same time believe-that there is no God). And since no argument to the metaphysical concept of Supreme Being, or the First Cause of all subsequent causes and their effects, requires a necessary or committed belief-in, it is further shown that the belief is cultural or emotional rather than rational or empirical.

 

[cottage]

I have heard both phrases, and interpret each differently, 'the scheme of things' being 'the bigger picture', but with intent.


[COLOR=#0]'When people talk about the scheme of things or the grand scheme of things , they are referring to the way that everything in the world seems to be organized.'[/COLOR]

the scheme of things; the grand scheme of things
eg: 'We realize that we are infinitely small within the scheme of things.'

the scheme of things the grand scheme of things definition | English dictionary for learners | Reverso Collins

My words were: “Human vanity finds it difficult to accept that we are just one small part in the overall scheme of things and we seek consolation in supernatural beliefs.”

You replied (with some indignation): “What???!!! Scheme???!!! There is a PLAN to the Universe? There is a PURPOSE? “

Now if I’m saying that human vanity seeks consolation in supernatural beliefs because it finds it difficult to accept we are just a small part in the scheme of things then it should be more than obvious that I’m being critical of supposed plans, intentions, or a purpose, and not arguing for those things!

 

[cottage]

I assume you mean 'certain knowledge' of the world as an object of knowledge. There is a difference between such knowledge (the world of facts) and the experience of knowing, or gnosis.

There is no distinction to be made here. May I remind you that your argument begs to inform us of the ‘true nature’ of the world, which is a claim to knowledge. Even your own argument must agree with Wittgenstein, who said: ‘The world is everything that is the case’. For no matter what you claim, or whatever you believe, you are saying something about the world, as per your earlier statements claiming the universe is indivisible and immutable.

The former is arrived at via of acquisition, while the latter is arrived at via subtraction, and then more subtraction, until one arrives at nothing. It is a process of emptying (kenosis), rather than a filling up. Once the obstacles of the thinking mind are subdued, another kind of conscious awareness comes into play. This other conscious awareness is not apparent to the rational mind, and cannot be discovered by reason. Zen calls this other conscious awareness 'Big Mind', as compared to 'monkey mind', being a reference to the constant jumping about of the thinking mind. What is needed is the stilling of the mind, not its activity.

It is no wonder that reason cannot claim 'certain knowledge' since, by its nature, it is a divisive system of investigation. No matter what 'conclusion' it may come to, it always self-reflects with doubt.

The mystic, on the other hand, never attempts to divide reality in order to analyze it as a means of coming to some 'conclusive' idea about it; all he can do is to see it as it actually is, intact. Seeing it as it actually is eliminates any doubt as to its true nature. Here, then, is certitude. It can be no other way.

At any rate, and to cut to the chase as regards the original point: Osho is simply trying to say that systems of rational thought can be regarded and touted as true for some time and then fall into disrepute when new information is uncovered, and in that sense, are limited systems.

Zen does not have this problem, simply because it is a reflection of the nature of things in their purest sense. That does not change over time as new philosophies do.

The limitations of reason, which may be generally accepted without reference to Kant, have been misrepresented in this discussion and used as an argument to support a mystical belief as if by default. And here you are speaking not of certainty but a method of reasoning. Now while induction refers to empirical knowledge, which can never be certain, deduction refers to propositions where the conclusion is derived from premises or general principles. But the question here has nothing to do with a chain of deductive reasoning or arguments from the general to the particular, which can never lead us to metaphysical certainty, but hinges entirely on your existential claims to absolute truths about the world.

And with that in mind I can see why you must constantly reiterate and re-state the doctrine, make pleas to authority or from other believers, and speak symbolically and in parables, which is no different to what we see in other forms of belief-as-faith. You employ those methods not through preference or utility but because of the distinct lack of certitude in the belief, for if it were certain then it would be indubitable, but since even you yourself can doubt it you must therefore accept that it is not a certain truth. Your claim isn’t simply that the world (ie something) exists, but that the ‘true’ nature of reality itself can be experienced, which is a profoundly extravagant assertion. That something exists is certain and we don’t need to apply our minds in order to discover that truth, but ‘higher consciousness’, ‘Absolute Joy’, ‘Supreme Enlightenment’, ‘the miraculous world of the infinite’ and this: ‘The clue twhy the Self decides to transform itself into all the myriad forms of the world and to forget that it is the Supreme Intelligence, has to do with play’, together with all the other things you’ve asserted, are just claims to knowledge that can be rejected or denied. Were those things certain then their necessity would obtain notwithstanding our denial (or contrarily with no regard for our approval either). Where a thing is intuitively certain it is not required of us to reason to its truth or to analyse it. If the thing is, then it is, independent of our assent or any reasoned argument to that effect. So whatever else your doctrinal belief might be, it isn’t certain. And so there is an important distinction to be made here: a claim to knowledge may be true or false, but there is no such thing as a ‘claim’ to certainty, for it is what it is and cannot be what it isn’t.

 

[cottage]

The Zen doctrine is a 'doctrineless doctrine', as it describes itself, 'a finger pointing to the moon, but not the moon itself'

So, in other words, a doctrine!

You are stretching the meaning of the word 'claim' to fit your pigeonholing it into your catalogue of religious belief systems, when Zen clearly is outside of those parameters. That is precisely what makes it Zen. Just because something is a claim does not necessarily make it a speculation. Speculation is exactly anti-Zen, as Zen is a spontaneous experience beyond all thought. You continue to interpret it through the glass of Reason and Analysis, and in so doing, are just going round in circles. When you can at last still the workings of your thinking mind, things will appear quite differently to you, because you will cease forcing reality to conform to Reason. The problem with the approach of Reason is in its very first step.

But you criticise the reasoning mind while attempting to defend your belief with a conditional argument, which is to apply reason! If the thinking mind is indeed erroneous then you have nothing to say; but you’ve shown that your beliefs are entirely constrained by and contained in the objective world, which, as I’ve argued all along, is where they must begin and end.

Zen is not a metaphysical hypothesis. It is not philosophy. It is not metaphysics, all of which involve rational thought. It is none of those systems. It is the direct seeing into one's own nature. Once this is seen and understood for what it is, there is no doubt. Only certitude about what is true remains, but it is not a certitude born of the thinking mind. That is the certitude that becomes the target of the sceptic.

Reality is just one way. There is no room for hypothesis, speculation, or debate here. Having said that, it is also not a dogma, since dogma is an outcome of doctrinal belief. Put simply, once again, it is the seeing of things as they are, not as one reasons that they are.
Can you get a glimpse of this?

But you don’t know ‘what they are’! You are just saying things as if they were true, stating them in the third person, and taking it all on trust or as a matter of faith.

I just explained the 'two kinds of certainty'; as for going to 'see for yourself', that is the only way you will 'see for yourself'. No one is dictating a doctrine to you that you must believe in because there is no doctrine to dictate to you. There is only reality as it exists right under your nose in this very moment, without any speculating about it, without any belief in it; only the direct seeing into its nature.

Can you do that?

This is what you said: “There are, it seems, two kinds of certainty: one that comes via dogma, and the other via seeing things as they are.” And that, with respect, is just pure nonsense. To say there are ‘two kinds of certainty’ is to say there is no certainty, which is false, while it is true to say there can be many forms of false knowledge. There are no species of certainty, for certainty is the same whether that applies to analytic propositions or to some absolute truth about the world, for denial in both cases must involve a contradiction. In response to your statement that the world is unchanged and unchanging my reply is simply to say to you: ‘No it isn’t’. It is not required of me to reason with you, or to argue from cause and effect, since the claim to certitude is yours alone. If your claims about the world were certain truth then it would be futile and absurd to deny them - and you wouldn’t be here now telling us that they are certain!

As for the rest you are being extremely vague. Where am do I see this ‘Absolute Joy’, or ‘the eternal, universal, unborn, ungrown, birthless, deathless, formless, impersonal, Self that is Pure Consciousness’? I’ve asked you numerous times to explain how you would have me see the above? But you never give a proper answer.

It is paradoxical that, for one to enter into certitude about the nature of reality, one must first experience great doubt and humility. The certitude in question is not a moral certitude, where one assumes a position of 'right' against another side considered as 'wrong'.

If a thing is certain then that is what it is, with no moral reasoning involved, or the assuming of any position.

Now stop attacking the pointing finger and go see for yourself. Just leave your baggage of Reason, Logic, and Analysis behind. You can reclaim their dead carcasses when you return.

A good while back I gave you a considered response in reply to your post 2258 (which you ignored), where I explained that we are not the cause of our experiences and that I’m open to anything at the point of its presentation. Reason isn’t a barrier to experience. In fact all our knowledge begins with experience (to quote Kant once more) and reason is subsequent and not antecedent to the experience. Thus we can experience things independently or even contrary to reason, but you are claiming knowledge from the experience. So your own argument works against you!

 

[godnotgod]

Stay with me here-

There is no self. So, to speak to a concept of you and me would be erroneous. Now if we in part have realized enlightenment but in part are still under the sway of Maya we would at once be fully enlightened and not enlightened. So as long as part of us lives under the sway of Maya then we would see both perspectives. Moreover, our perspective from this authentic self would have a cumulative recognition of our past selves, thus rendering the obliteration of the unenlightened selves impossible. (Unless you are suggesting that retention of our past perspective is impossible. This, however, brings up the question: how can any enlightened soul understand Maya ever existed, since that knowledge is contingent on retention of a past perspective). Consequently, one cannot realize enlightenment without either self or without simultaneously being unenlightened.

Now, I realize the logical error the former depicts. Still, I refer to the concept that this seemingly illogical co-existence, appears only thus because of Maya. In this view, enlightenment itself is part of Maya. And as Maya dissolves from part of our Authentic self, then so to will the dualistic notion of the enlightened and the unenlightened.

Because the self is illusory, there never was an unenlightened self nor is there now an enlightened self; there is only enlightenment itself.

Maya, however, is still present after enlightenment, but because of enlightenment, it is now recognized for what it is, and one is no longer driven by it nor attached to it and its consequences, primarily suffering. Suffering due to pursuit of the illusion ends when it's cause is seen for what it is.

Maya is to believe that the fictional character one is dreaming in the drama of life is real; enlightenment is awakening from the dream and to see clearly the fictional nature of the character that was being acted out.

 

[godnotgod]

So, in other words, a doctrine!

Try to understand the context in which the statement is made:

"Zen is a doctrineless "doctrine", meaning that it is no doctrine, "doctrine" merely being used as a matter of convention.

A finger pointing to the moon cannot be a doctrine, as one does not believe in the pointing finger; one sees what is being pointed out.

I keep pointing this feature of Zen out over and over, and you continue to drag it back out again, in your futile attempt to try to make it look like just another belief system as a means of forcing it to fit your preconceived notion of things, but Zen is one of those things that simply refuses to fit your pigeonholing, simply because there is nothing in Zen for the grasping mind to latch onto. The more you grasp, the more elusive it becomes. That is the nature of reality, and why Reason cannot ever provide an explanation for it. Reason is an attempt to encapsulate reality, but reality is a flowing stream that refuses such encapsulation, creating paradox to the rational mind. It simply cannot understand why it cannot be pigeonholed the way it thinks it should be. Science keeps trying with its logic and analysis, religion keeps trying by trying to make it conform to its fear-driven dogma, and intellectuals like yourself keep trying with your 'reason'.

Reason isn’t a barrier to experience.

That is not what I said; I said that Reason is a barrier to Enlightenment. You cannot 'think' your way to Enlightenment, because Reason is still in the sphere of the dual mind [ie; delusion], while Enlightenment is the world of The One, which is the way things actually are.

"The place wherein Thou art found unveiled is girt round with the coincidence of contradictions, and this is the wall of Paradise wherein Thou dost abide. The door whereof is guarded by the most proud spirit of Reason, and, unless he be vanquished, the way in will not lie open."

Nicholas of Cusa

 

[godnotgod]

My words were: “Human vanity finds it difficult to accept that we are just one small part in the overall scheme of things and we seek consolation in supernatural beliefs.”

You replied (with some indignation): “What???!!! Scheme???!!! There is a PLAN to the Universe? There is a PURPOSE? “

Now if I’m saying that human vanity seeks consolation in supernatural beliefs because it finds it difficult to accept we are just a small part in the scheme of things then it should be more than obvious that I’m being critical of supposed plans, intentions, or a purpose, and not arguing for those things!

What your statement amounts to is essentially a contradiction. I would suggest you use something like 'big picture' in lieu of 'scheme', as 'scheme' obviously implies an intentional plan of some sort.

You are reading 'indignation' into my response whose intent was purely comical.

 

[Thief]

Catching up with some responses…

To believe that God exists because of ‘the stars above’ and science etc is simply to believe-that there is a God, which is a belief that may be true or false. But in your case you believe-in God, and therefore your position is one of pure faith (you can’t logically believe-in God and at the same time believe-that there is no God). And since no argument to the metaphysical concept of Supreme Being, or the First Cause of all subsequent causes and their effects, requires a necessary or committed belief-in, it is further shown that the belief is cultural or emotional rather than rational or empirical.

Nay...not true.

It is common in this day to belief the universe (the one word) was at one location all at once....the singularity.

At this 'point'...I make a decision....while asking
Do the laws of motion apply?...can geometry work?

An object at rest will remain at rest until 'something' moves it.
(This places the singularity as not moving)

And that stands to reason.
For the singularity to be truly singular there can be no secondary point.
Therefore, no geometry.
No possibility of movement...
no where to go, and you can't get there from here.

We are then at the 'essence' of existence which cannot be 'proven'.

How to say?...'I AM!'...without a showing of it.
'..let there be light...'

Some scientists claim all matter could be self generating.
It just comes out of nowhere.

Really?

 

[godnotgod]

There is no distinction to be made here. May I remind you that your argument begs to inform us of the ‘true nature’ of the world, which is a claim to knowledge. Even your own argument must agree with Wittgenstein, who said: ‘The world is everything that is the case’. For no matter what you claim, or whatever you believe, you are saying something about the world, as per your earlier statements claiming the universe is indivisible and immutable.

But because of the illusory nature of the world, it is not the case; it is not what it seems to be. Knowledge has to do with thinking the world to be real; knowing has to do with the seeing of it as illusory. The distinction is huge.

 

[Thief]

But because of the illusory nature of the world, it is not the case; it is not what it seems to be. Knowledge has to do with thinking the world to be real; knowing has to do with the seeing of it as illusory. The distinction is huge.

Word games.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Stay with me here-

There is no self. So, to speak to a concept of you and me would be erroneous. Now if we in part have realized enlightenment but in part are still under the sway of Maya we would at once be fully enlightened and not enlightened. So as long as part of us lives under the sway of Maya then we would see both perspectives. Moreover, our perspective from this authentic self would have a cumulative recognition of our past selves, thus rendering the obliteration of the unenlightened selves impossible.

This is a reasonable attempt to explain the unexplainable, and 'I' do understand what you are trying to convey, but the 'authentic self' is the one and only real self, all other so called selves which identify their self reference in a time and space context are still 'maya' relative to the undifferentiated unity of All that exists.

Iow, their is no 'in part realized enlightenment', there is a state of enlightenment, and there is a maya state of remembering a state of enlightenment. The biggest error any aspirant can make is to ego self identify with a moment or more of egolessness, regardless of the frequency and their duration.

Here is wonderful allegory from Chuang Tzu on this arcane subject,...the character called 'Knowledge' in this story refers to the 'ego self', those who understand will understand...

Knowledge had rambled northwards to the region of the Dark Water, where he ascended the height of Imperceptible Slope, when it happened that he met with Dumb Inaction. Knowledge addressed him, saying, 'I wish to ask you some questions:-- By what process of thought and anxious consideration do we get to know the Tâo? Where should we dwell and what should we do to find our rest in the Tâo? From what point should we start and what path should we pursue to make the Tâo our own?' He asked these three questions, but Dumb Inaction gave him no reply. Not only did he not answer, but he did not know how to answer.

Knowledge, disappointed by the fruitlessness of his questioning, returned to the south of the Bright Water, and ascended the height of the End of Doubt, where he saw Heedless Blurter, to whom he put the same questions, and who replied, 'Ah! I know, and will tell you.' But while he was about to speak, he forgot what he wanted to say.

Knowledge, again receiving no answer to his questions, returned to the palace of the the Yellow emperor, where he saw Hwang-Tî (Yellow emperor), and put the questions to him. Hwang-Tî said, 'To exercise no thought and no anxious consideration is the first step towards knowing the Tâo; to dwell nowhere and do nothing is the first step towards resting in the Tâo; to start from nowhere and pursue no path is the first step towards being one with the Tâo.'

Knowledge then proudly addressed Hwang-Tî, saying, 'I and you know this, but those two did not know it; which of us is right?' Hwang-Tî replied, 'Dumb Inaction is truly right, Heedless Blurter has an appearance of being so, but you and I are nowhere near to being so". As it is said, "Those who know do not speak of it, those who speak of it do not know it", and "Hence the sage conveys his instructions without the use of speech."

 

[godnotgod]

Moreover, our perspective from this authentic self would have a cumulative recognition of our past selves, thus rendering the obliteration of the unenlightened selves impossible. (Unless you are suggesting that retention of our past perspective is impossible. This, however, brings up the question: how can any enlightened soul understand Maya ever existed, since that knowledge is contingent on retention of a past perspective). Consequently, one cannot realize enlightenment without either self or without simultaneously being unenlightened.

If you mistake a rope moving in the wind for a snake, and when it is then realized that there is only the rope, you only remember the illusion of 'snake'; you do not remember 'snake', since snake was never the case to begin with. You are only remembering the traces of the illusion.

The fact that you did recognize the illusion for what it is indicates the presence of enlightenment, even during the moment you firmly believed the rope to be a snake.

What becomes extinguished is the belief that there was actually a snake.

What is left is certitude that there is only the rope.

 

[godnotgod]

Here is wonderful allegory from Chuang Tzu on this arcane subject,...the character called 'Knowledge' in this story refers to the 'ego self', those who understand will understand...

Thank you for posting this; I had'nt seen it before. Love Chuang-tzu, esp his dreaming man/butterfly story.

You're probably also familiar with the following allegory, but I will post it for the benefit of those who are not:



*The Lost Pearl*


The Yellow Emperor went wandering
To the north of the Red Water
To the Kwan Lun mountain. He looked
around
Over the edge of the world. On the way
home
He lost his night-colored pearl*.
He sent out Science to seek his pearl,
and got nothing.
He sent Analysis to look for his pearl,
and got nothing.
He sent out Logic to seek his pearl,
and got nothing.
Then he asked Nothingness, and
Nothingness had it!
The Yellow Emperor said:
“Strange, indeed: Nothingness
Who was not sent
Who did no work to find it
Had the night-colored pearl!”


from “The Way of Chuang Tzu,” trans Merton


*night-colored pearl = original nature

 

[godnotgod]

Word games.

Either you see things as they are, or you do not.

 

[godnotgod]

Sure. The Christian born-again experience can only be verified by those who have also had the born-again experience. But I still have some trouble with the claim that 'the born-again experience can be verified.' In my experience, the mind can easily fool us into believing just about anything it wants.

And how is it that you know that?

It's interesting that you use such an example. Do you think a chick may be influenced in its behaviors and beliefs by the behaviors and beliefs of the mother hen? Can a chick ever mature into something else, something more, than a Hen?

No, but this is only a metaphor to illustrate the point that the Zen Master is in a position to know when the student is on the threshold of his enlightenment, just as the mother hen knows when its chick is on the verge of hatching.

I don't think so. One must put mother hens and masters aside if one is ever to become unique.

One can only become unique by that which is common.

Have you ever studied the phenomenon of false confessions? It's interesting how the interrogator can feed information to a suspect, such that the suspect can often give a credible confession, even though he actually knew nothing at all about the crime. Could such a thing happen between Teacher and Student?

You are talking about the process of adding something; Zen is about subtraction, where there is nothing to grasp; nothing to figure out; nothing to know. You should be unconcerned with the finger that is doing the pointing, and more concerned with what it points to.

Please forgive me for saying this, but from what I have seen so far of your own ego-involvement, I do not think you would be my first choice as a dispassionate judge of others and their motivations.

I did not need to pass judgment; their behavior gave them away for what they were: karma-driven egoists.

Well, unless I am the first or most-genuine Enlightened One you've met so far. In that case, you would have to judge the others as being in error... to withhold the news of their own Enlightenment.

See what I mean? See how our assumptions can be the ruler of our Truth?

They can make a mess of us as dispassionate judges.

For you, Truth can be one way or another. Enlightened people do not seek the 'Truth'; they only cease to cherish opinion.

The enlightened have no need or desire to announce or withhold their enlightenment; that would be like announcing that you are human, or that you breathe oxygen. It would be a bit odd for someone to go around announcing that he breathes oxygen. In the case of enlightenment, its deliberate display is an indication of an egoic issue. Therefore:

'Before Enlightenment, sweeping the floor;
after Enlightenment, sweeping the floor'

 

[godnotgod]

I haven't yet given up the idea that I might have an effect on the world. One mind at a time -- that can still create an effect.

Is that your concern? To 'have an effect on the world'?