Hello, hope you’re well!
So I was supposed to be doing something productive,.. well I was, but I was supposed to be doing something more productive for myself. I’ll get to it, right after writing this article– the iron is hot, that’s when you’re supposed to strike it right?
So I was scrolling through Facebook, one of my least favorite things to do. I really dislike social media other than the keeping up with friends aspect. People change behind a screen and as they enter the virtual world. Not only that, but for the most part it’s a real waste of time.
I’ve made Facebook more palpable for myself by following lots of groups that have to do with my interests. One of my interests is Zen and I follow several pages for words of wisdom and for fruitful conversation.
If you’re not familiar with Zen, it a nutshell it’s basically:
“What is Zen? It’s both something we are—our true nature expressing itself moment by moment—and something we do—a disciplined practice through which we can realize the joy of being. It is not a belief system to which one converts. There is no dogma or doctrine.
Zen is the direct experience of what we might call ultimate reality, or the absolute, yet it is not separate from the ordinary, the relative. This direct experience is our birthright. The practice of zazen—meditation—is a way of realizing the non-dualistic, vibrant, subtle, and interconnected nature of all life.” — the zen studies society
Here’s the wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen
and here is my favorite Zen philosopher (so far) Alan Watts speaking on it (don’t forget that youtube has a x2 speed if you need it):
So I was scrolling through Facebook and checking out what’s on the feed today when I came across this picture posting:
Shunryū Suzuki is right in my books and I pretty much have Zen down, so it has been awhile since I’ve seen anything truly profound. Since the photo and quote didn’t strike me, I was going to continue scrolling on, but I went ahead and read the two comments Facebook previewed in the post, one of them by a man we’ll call “Piotr”.
Piotr commented: “So zen is an ignorant and irresponsible focus on seeing, observing and letting things go and nothing regarding human agency, ingenuity and action. This is the road to disaster, as the environmental precipice humanity faces, unfolds. Evil flourishes when good people turn away! What value is this?”
There are often many comments made in the same vein as this one. They are either deliberately made in an attempt to cut down the subject (in this case Zen, in other cases religion or ways of thinking) or they are being said in an effort to understand.
While this comment is could be viewed as the former and maybe a little extreme, and by that I mean that this person wouldn’t even make an effort to understand Zen. I don’t believe that to be the case based on his other comments on the post and also because he ended his comment with a question, which to me is an invitation for understanding rather than just the sharing of their view. So, I saw his comment as an attempt to learn and try to bridge the gap in his understanding and this quote, below is our conversation. I’m sharing this because if Pitor has questions/concerns about this, than others will to and perhaps I will have said things in just the right way to help out not only Pitor, but others who have the same questions.
Piotr: “So zen is an ignorant and irresponsible focus on seeing, observing and letting things go and nothing regarding human agency, ingenuity and action. This is the road to disaster, as the environmental precipice humanity faces, unfolds. Evil flourishes when good people turn away! What value is this?”
FCP: no, that is your first impression/attempt of Zen. Keep trying to understand, it’s worth it.
Piotr: I’m using to the description of Zen given in the Original Post (the picture). Perhaps it needs clarifying?
FCP: perhaps it needs to not be viewed in the nature of ignoring everything and letting it go as it goes. You do realize that people being called to action (aka not turning away) is a part of everything going as it goes too right? Human agency is part of nature. If you/someone sees something that does not sit well with them and think appropriate action should be taken is part of letting things go as they should go aka a part of nature.There is no mention in OPs picture of anyone turning away, you can certainly see that, but you also have to see the people that don’t turn away. Nothing is ever an “all or nothing” scenario
Piotr: There’s no mention of agency and action only seeing observing and letting go. It’s very confused and ambiguous.
FCP: Pitor, does agency and action need to be said or does that go without saying? Notice how that was your first thought, “where is the agency and action?”.
It’s there, it goes without saying. Do we need to tell people how to be a good human and that they should take respectful/positive actions for themselves and the “greater good”? Maybe some, but I would wager not most. And if we do need to do that and include it, then it would be incredibly long, we couldn’t possibly cover everything, everything is always expanding.It may help to realize that the simple always comes from the complicated.
A pebble on a beach is a pebble on a beach, but it’s not only that, it’s the heat and pressure it experienced, it’s the journey over land/through sea, it’s the wind/water that blew through/around it, and– unless it’s pure– then it’s also all of the individual elements combined to make it and their respective journeys which could have gone down any number of infinite other paths but instead ended up down that specific one to unite and end up as they are.
It’s similar to math. If you’ll remember, your teacher would often teach you long equations that you had to study and know. You would do that and get it down, then you would proceed to the next level of math. Once you are at a higher level of math, that teacher would then introduce to you a simplified version of the equation you had learned previously. This is so you know how it works before you start using it. The simplified equation and the complicated equations both possess the same pieces and thus the same result.
Often, what accompanies a person studying Zen is their desire to know/understand the world, often this desire stems from their own compassion in wanting to be a “good” person for themselves or others. You will find no mention of any true negative in Zen, even if it is mentioned. No true “good” person will sit by when it is within their power to provide benefit– one thing to note of Zen is that those who understand it, understand the lengths of their own power very well (compared to those who don’t know Zen), which can seem like more inaction, but really it is directing their power to more fruitful endeavors that will hopefully spread and multiply in time. You might call this the butterfly effect. With a scientific perspective it would be “like attracts like”.
What I’m also noticing in this picture is that it’s a quote, it’s possible that the above sentence is part of a larger thought/essay/lecture and is expanded on to answer your question. I’ve never heard of or read Shunryu Suzuki, but maybe you’ll find that if you check. Maybe not though!
And lastly, I’m not sure if you’ve ever heard it said in Zen before, but one thing to keep in mind is that “Zen isn’t words” or “The true Zen cannot be said”. This helps me know that Zen is more than just what is being presented if I feel that something Zen related I see is missing something.
Pitor has yet to respond to that comment, as we have already had other conversations in other threads, I don’t believe he will come back to address it. If he does though, I’ll be sure to update this page.
Speaking of other threads…
In response to other comments, there was a woman named Madrid (name changed for privacy) who replied to Pitor’s original comment with:
Madrid’s Comment: “wrong side of bed this morning?”
To which Pitor replied: “I’m using to the description of Zen given in the original picture. Perhaps it needs clarifying?
Then Pitor commented separately on the post
Pitor’s Comment: “One can suffer without any language at all. Just stop drinking and eating for a week. I’m using to the description of Zen given in the OP. Perhaps it needs clarifying?”
So Pitor is ultimately asking if the quote in the picture should be expanded/clarified to allow further understanding from those who encounter it. And, for some reason almost beyond me (remember, I said there were two ways of taking Pitor’s comments) Madrid then replied.
Madrid’s reply: it’s ok, Pitor, you are in a deliberately obtuse mood. Hopefully, you will outgrow it soon.
and, confused, Pitor made the only proper response:
Pitor: I’m simply replying directly and clearly to the comments, just as Zen would suggest. Please let me know specifically what the issue with my comment is? If I have issues with this, so will others.
To which Madrid didn’t reply. Which, you would think if she really had a case that Pitor had actually shown that he was in a deliberately obtuse mood then she would provide her evidence.
Of course, I should have stayed out of it, it’s not my conversation, but of course I couldn’t help but inject myself into their discourse to which Madrid replied and we had the following conversation.
FCP: Madrid, Pitor is just trying to understand the value here, not seeing it doesn’t make him obtuse. He is trying to grow by asking questions to try and see what others see 🙂
Madrid: I did not say he is obtuse. I said he was being deliberately obtuse. Bad mood or something. Please think, FCP, before you patronize or turn into a kindergarten teacher
Now, before I share my response with you, I’m not exactly proud of it and really there may have been a better way to respond but Madrid unintentionally pressed one of my buttons that is very sensitive and sets me off. This response would have been a lot less respectful in the past but I have learned to do my best to always watch my words as carefully as possible.
Madrid indirectly accused me of not thinking, which is one of my biggest pet peeves. Never accuse me of not thinking, because I cannot help but demonstrate the level of thought that I put into things and prove you wrong. Accusing anyone of not thinking never sits well with me, and in my book that is the biggest insult anyone could possibly say to anyone. Everyone thinks, and to say that to anyone is just plain rude. I say it below, but I’ll say it again slightly differently now. “ask someone if they were thinking or what they were thinking, but never just accuse someone of not thinking because that is certainly not true and absolutely rude”.
Anywho, here’s how I finished out that conversation since Madrid has yet to reply (I don’t expect her to since she hasn’t already but if she does, I’ll certainly update this post):
FCP: lol sorry, Madrid that is what I meant: “Him not seeing it doesn’t make him in a deliberately obtuse mood. “ please pardon the miscommunication.
How do you know he’s in a bad mood if you cannot hear his tone or see his face/body language? How come you didn’t answer his question when he asked you to point out where specifically the issue with his comment is? (Or maybe you’ve done so and I missed it so far. Sorry if so.)
How do you know I didn’t think? And how exactly did I patronize or turn into a kindergarten teacher?
I commented not to do/be those things, I commented because I think jumping to conclusions about Peter’s mood or demeanor isn’t fair to him and doesn’t help to answer his questions/concerns or further his understanding. Though that’s your prerogative on whether or not you want to do that of course.
My intent in commenting was to tactfully remind everyone (even those observing.. keep in mind this is a Facebook group and other people can see you talking) that we’re all, if not friends, at the very least students of Zen and can be respectful and we don’t have to meet “bad attitude” with patronizing remarks like “you are in a deliberately obtuse mood. Hopefully, you will outgrow it soon.” rather than addressing his thoughts/concerns/questions (should you feel called to do so) and helping him to grow like he is trying to do.
He didn’t comment with his thoughts to get comments regarding his mood or need for growth, he commented for discussion at the very least (if not for understanding).
If you feel patronized or like I’ve been a kindergarten teacher, maybe that’s because you put yourself in that position to feel that way.
My intent was to be respectfully tactful and not call anyone out, but now I’ve gone and explained my thinking and exactly what I saw and my thought process. Hopefully you understand my thinking now since you had the impression that I didn’t think earlier.
What a rude thing to say to someone, “Please think”, like they don’t think. Everyone thinks Madrid, the same way that everyone’s poop stinks. I’ll digress, sometimes people don’t think, you’re right, but maybe ask someone if they had thought or what it was they were thinking, but to just say that they don’t think or weren’t thinking outright like that… woof
There is no such thing as someone who “doesn’t think”, no matter which way you swing it.
Sure, there may be those who do not put in the level of thought that they should about thinks, but that doesn’t mean they don’t think, they’re just thinking about different things.
This is part of my baggage from previous discussions I’ve had with people, often people will say that your understanding is due to you “not really thinking” about a situation, and this is such a cop-out. They won’t refute your points or answer your questions, they’ll just say that you’re not thinking or not thinking well enough, which at that point is a character attack, or if not a character attack it’s an attempt to discredit you as a person rather than what it is you are discussing. One should never “attack” the person who presents an idea, but the idea itself, “attacking” the person is rude and beyond incredulous.
If what they were were saying really is refutable, then the persons in the discourse would not discuss have to look at the person presenting the idea but the idea itself. Yet they have run out of effective ammunition against the idea or have not formulated their arguments/thoughts against it (if they truly have any) and have resorted to the only other place of “attack” that they can see and continue representing their own thoughts/ideas.
To “attack” the person presenting the ideas instead of the idea itself uses a “Sour grapes” mentality, which is fine, but the question at that point is, are the grapes actually sour or are you just saying they are?
Anyway, I digress..
This was just a fun/interesting couple of conversations I had in my travels that I thought would be beneficial to share, I hope you found something of value within it.
Wishing you all the best,
FCP 🙃
Next Article: A list / Links for exposing the crime of the century
Previous Article: “Wishing you all the best,”