I said I wouldn't enter that fray. I generally tend to avoid getting
into debates with Objectivists. I understand that allows you to
spin your own memes regarding my views, and I'm quite happy
about that. On the other hand, I'm also happy to try to answer
questions about Buddhism, within the limits of my understanding
of it.
>> In Zen training every concept is held up to
>>scrutiny, nothing is left uninvestigated,
>
>Does this include the concept of Zen itself?
As Richard's story indicated, certainly, yes. In a well-known
Zen image, Zen itself is just "the finger pointing at the moon".
When you're looking in the right direction, and your clouds of
confusion have been dispersed, you no longer need the finger.
Another metaphor that I like says that Buddhist teachers are
"selling water by the river". Only those who have a problem
finding the river need Buddhism, and Buddhism helps them
see it for themselves.
>> it shows a way to eliminate
>>those memes that survive by pretending to be furthering our
>>own interests -- and even to be us! -- but whose interests are
>>not really aligned with our own
>
>Like the memes of Buddhism.
Ses you. But why don't you tell us just what is wrong with Zen as
characterised in that and other messages here -- rather than what's
wrong with the Objectivist version of it? I mean, engage in
discussion a little more, as opposed to just trotting out Objectivist
dogma?
(Actually, you are more "interactive" than most Objectivists, but
that's not saying much.)
>>Any comments?
>
>Yeah, I got comments. Get off that pillow and into the forum, like a good
>gladiator..
Sorry, David, but I don't think too much of "gladiators" who are so
throughly encased by dogmatic armor that they never actually
manage to land a blow. :-)
--
Robin Faichney
r.j.faichney@stirling.ac.uk
http://www.stir.ac.uk/envsci/staff/rjf1/