Theos-Talk Archives (May 2003 Message tt00124)

Monday, May 12, 2003

Re: Zen Buddhism & Theosophy


Dear Steve:


I might survive a discussion, so as to learn what is intended,
and what to prepare for.

I might not survive a "bite" of the unknown.


I am cautious by nature. Why should I risk my life and my
independent capacity of thinking ?

If people have been there, then they can explain it, and let me
DECIDE on what I WILL DO. I don't need decisions made for me.

Too many "religions" are based on "blind faith" and you trust
me" -- for me to accept anything I can't first understand.

How do we know that we are better for the experience, if and when
we emerge?

Of the two which is the safer course? Mind review, ahead of
time, or precipitous and unguarded emotional impulse ? How does
one apply here: "Look before you leap" ?

You might say one misses the experience. Perhpas it is an
"experience" that ought to be missed !

To leap into someone else's "unknown" or "unexplained," seems
dangerous to me.

You mention the fact that Zen rejects dry, lifeless
philosophizing -- why? Is that absolutely true? It may be Dr.
Suzuki's opinion, but what do others say ? As a matter of fact
the etymology of the word Zen relates it to DZYAN, GNANA,
GNYANA, DJANA, etc... all meaning WISDOM,. and derived from
the Sanskrit word.

To me, Theosophy presents explanations. It represents respect
for the average Mind that is capable of learning and
understanding, once that primary and basic principles are laid
out. It does not encourage impetuosity or rashness. It is to me
a living philosophy -- it gives a "history:" of discovery in
nature and her laws that covers thousands and millions of years.
It lies at the base of all religions and sciences.

If it were lifeless then I would agree with you, But, I don't
think it shows evidence of that.

In this case who else has done any of the evaluating?

Why is the "mind" and the "philosophical" approach derided or
minimized? Who is afraid of that approach? Is not every human
being a duality? Mind and emotions? And does not the Real I
reside beyond these and consider impersonally their opinions and
conclusions before adopting one or other of the methods or
selections offered.

But I note that the whole presentation is based in terms that
seem to emphasize impulse and emotions. Those constitute our
temporary personality base. They change constantly. What is it
(personality) afraid of?

I think those questions need to be asked and answered. The human
being, aside from being emotional, is also rational. Why shut
out the superior ability to consider impersonally, impartially,
and, if we decide we may safely shut them out, having done so,
make decisions on the sole basis of our likes and dislikes? Are
these as reliable as our thoughts? Have they (our impulsive
emotions) never made errors?

As for myself, I would never invite any one to "follow me." In
the matter of advice, I strongly advise individual selection. And
as far as possible I always present such facts as I think useful,
and impartially verifiable, before them in advance. I would
never take such a responsibility otherwise. Let the final choice
and responsibility be wholly within the grasp of the one who is
choosing. One carries enough responsibility (and Karma) from the
fact of providing cautious and tested information.

As far as I am able to understand, Zen (in translation) reviews
the steps that lead to a transcendence of the purely physical and
emotional sense-oriented condition (as we are here and now). They
describe some of the experiences others have had, of an inner
condition of meditation and ecstasy (to use our words) I don't
see that they recommend doing anything in a hurry. They do say
that there are states and conditions that are other than purely
physical based sensations.

Theosophy provides some of the rules and laws that pertain to
that. It recommends understanding, as a FIRST requisite. It does
not skip the "intellectual.. Interpreters and translators of the
Zen system, seem to have given that view. I think they err.

Theosophy recommends study first -- so does true Zen.

Best wishes,

Dallas

============================

-----Original Message-----
From: Steve S (in part)
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 6:06 AM

Subject: Theosophy, Zen, Buddhism, and ...

---:
> The following from D. T. Suzuki's "Studies in Zen"
> might be seen (by some?) as offering an interesting
> perspective:

What may not be apparent to some readers is that Suzuki is saying
Zen
is not intellectual.
Theosophists go to Baskin Robbins to read magazines about ice
cream and form a discussion group to argue endlessly about what
ice cream must taste like to those few who
belong to the Great White Lodge of ice cream lovers and
incidentally
to identify "black magicians" who doubt they have it right.
Zen students go there to buy a cone and bite into it.
The Theosophist will invite you to a lecture about ice cream.
The Zen master will invite you to have a bite.

SS

============================


DTB WHY ? what is the reason offered ?

============================