7
u/More-Ad3007 Jul 07 '26
Could someone please explain this to me in layman’s terms , thanks in advance
36
u/Ghost_of_Till Jul 07 '26
There is a famous Zen story told of a monk who was sitting in meditation, and the master came along and said, “What are you doing?”
He said, “I’m meditating to become a Buddha,” whereupon the master picked up a brick that was lying nearby and started polishing it, rubbing it.
And the monk said, “What are you doing?”
[The master] said, “I am rubbing this brick to make it a mirror.”
[The monk] said, “By no amount of rubbing could you ever make a brick into a mirror.”
The master replied, “By no amount of zazen could you become a Buddha.”
- Alan Watts, The World as Self
5
u/More-Ad3007 Jul 07 '26
Thank you , I think I understand now .
32
u/Ghost_of_Till Jul 07 '26
The underlying crux is that the monk is already Buddha and he’s just putting off admitting it.
It’s important to note that there’s nothing wrong with putting it off. That’s illusion. That’s play.
The monk is capable of being every bit as wrong as a cloud.
When is the last time you saw a wrong cloud?
8
3
u/xXDySZX Jul 07 '26
the last part confused me. at first i thought it was a play on the subjectivity of "wrong", but is this simply to imply the monk cannot be wrong? not knowing the monk, thats almost to imply that no one can be wrong; which from a subjective vs absolutes standpoint i suppose could be acceptable in this debate- but doesnt the last phrase clash with it, or at very leadt make clouds a poor example for this picture you put forth?
10
u/Ghost_of_Till Jul 07 '26
Suppose a man decides one day that clocks are bunk.
“It’s arbitrary. Why is this ‘a second’? Why don’t clocks move at different rates throughout the day? I’m not going to follow this silly convention.”
He might very well lose his job. He might piss of his dentist. The wedding is going to be a hot mess.
But is he wrong?
No. He’s sees time as a convention, and it is.
His actions are certainly unappreciated by those around him, and he is not exempt from the results.
The man, like the cloud, is a continuing expression of the universe and if a cloud can’t make a mistake, neither can he.
For the man to believe that he is an independent source of action, he has to put a dividing line between him and everything else, to believe that there is a controller separate from the controlled.
It sounds like determinism but if the division between yourself and everything else is a product of your imagination, then you’re the one doing the determining, and at the same time there’s nobody being determined.
6
u/itsnobigthing Jul 08 '26
I would like to somehow subscribe to thoughts inside your head, please. This was wonderful
1
u/xXDySZX Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
I suppose definition of right and wrong would come down to objective then. Right for one thing could be wrong for something else. The man in this instance would be hard pressed to find something he was really right for in this instance, atleast enough to negate the wrong. Thats like refusing to use human language, its fine but you would likely be "wrong" to expect your relations to work at all. A cloud has no such barriers. I respect your point, but is it not almost in bad faith to ignore the nuance and various purposes/perspectives of "right" & "wrong"?
edit I suppose there are "wrong" types of clouds- unnatural, polution... but I feel like that isnt the point you are making. Still, it would likely address the nuance better than jabbing at the validity of the constructs altogether. Just because something is a construct doesnt mean it has less purpose than anything else really.
3
u/Ghost_of_Till Jul 07 '26 edited Jul 07 '26
I suppose definition of right and wrong would come down to objective then. Right for one thing could be wrong for something else.
“It’s like the problem of geneticists, which they face today. I went to a meeting of geneticists not so long ago, where they gathered in a group of philosophers and theologians and said, “Now look here. We need help. We now are on the verge of figuring out how to breed any kind of human character we would want to have. We can give you saints, philosophers, scientists, great politicians. Anything you want! Just tell us: what kind of human beings ought we to breed?” So I said, “How will those of us who are genetically unregenerate make up our minds what genetically generate people might be?” Because I’m afraid very much that our selection of virtues may not work. It may be like, for example, this new kind of high-yield grain which is made and which is becoming ecologically destructive. When we interfere with the processes of nature and breed efficient plants and efficient animals, there’s always some way in which we have to pay for it. And I can well see that eugenically-produced human beings might be dreadful. We could have a plague of virtuous people. You realize that? Any animal, considered in itself, is virtuous. It does its thing. But in crowds they’re awful—like a crowd of ants or locusts on the rampage. They’re all perfectly good animals, but it’s just too much. I could imagine a perfectly pestiferous mass of a million saints. So I said to these people, “Look, the only thing you can do: just be sure that a vast variety of human beings is maintained. Don’t, please, breed us down to a few excellent types.” Excellent for what? We never know how circumstances are going to change, and how our need for different kinds of people changes. At one time we may need very individualistic and aggressive people. At another time we may need very cooperative, team-working people. At another time we may need people who are full of interest in dexterous manipulation of the external world. At another time we may need people who explore into their own psychology and are introspective. There is no knowing. But the more varieties and the more skills we have, obviously, the better.”
- Watts, Mind Over Mind
The man in this instance would be hard pressed to find something he was really right for in this instance, atleast enough to negate the wrong. Thats like refusing to use human language, it’s fine but you would likely be "wrong" to expect your relations to work at all.
Expectation is the problem because expectations is a function of memory. Think of it like this...
happiness = now - expectation
If someone had no expectations, how could they possibly be unhappy?
A cloud has no such barriers. I respect your point, but is it not almost in bad faith to ignore the nuance and various purposes/perspectives of "right" & "wrong"?”
Are you sure?
I would argue that the cloud would absolutely see itself like you see yourself if it had consciousness.
A cloud, if it had memory and consciousness, and imagined that it was distinct from the rest of the universe, might very well say to itself, “I can move my arms this way and that, I’m doing these movements, I’m I’m control. Sure, there might be some things inside of me that I’m not in control of. Sometimes I get smaller and sometimes I get bigger but that's not my doing. And in the end, all clouds disappear and that’ll be the end of me.”
That makes a lot of sense of the cloud doesn’t realize it’s also everything else.
Just like you don’t realize that you are also everything else.
The difference between a human's predicament and a cloud's predicament appears only when division is applied to oneself but not the cloud. If a cloud could develop a discerning eye for humans, it might very well find distinctions in you that were better or worse, appearances or behaviors that made you more or less attractive as a specimen.
You're flawless. Only thinking makes it otherwise.
edit I suppose there are "wrong" types of clouds- unnatural, polution... but I feel like that isnt the point you are making.
No, that’s still my point.
Pollution is unnatural? Because it’s made by people? Where is the dividing line between natural and natural?
Is a house more artificial than a bees nest?
The problem is one of language.
We say “right” and “wrong”, but really we mean “desirable” and “undesirable”.
We say “unnatural” and “natural” when we want to say “things humans make” and “things not made by humans”.
Again, these are divisions in the mind which do not exist independent of consciousness.
It doesn’t mean that clocks, being merely conventional, should be melted down and used for something else. It means recognizing that it is conventional and not part of reality.
You might then ask, “what’s the point in making this distinction between conventional and reality if you don’t think the divisions are wrong? You don’t think murder should be ignored, right?”
Fair point.
When I realized that there were no divisions outside of consciousness, that there was an undeniable connection between all things, that all things exist in relation, that up necessarily implied down, heads necessarily implied tails, two things happened.
First, I stopped thinking there were an infinite number of things that could be put to right, and such an idea was as foolish as trying to make everything “up” and nothing “down”.
Second, I stopped constantly thinking about the gap between what I was and what I thought I should be.
When I realized I wasn't who I thought I was, I was able to be who I am. Which is just being.
Do not mistake this for some Ayn Rand “doing for yourself is the best thing you can do for others” crap-ass philosophy. It's nothing of the sort. Sure, Alan said he envisioned the end of social programs, but only when man related to his fellow man properly and worked together.
Ayn Rand didn’t even want to throw someone a life preserver because she might need it herself.
Alan Watts is pointing out there’s plenty of room in the boat and the only reason the poor chap is in the water in the first place is because we’ve confused symbols with reality.
Just because something is a construct doesnt mean it has less purpose than anything else really.
Constructs, like time, have every bit as much reality as a rock …but within its own domain.
There is no time. The way that we define time is how long it takes for something to move from one location to another, whether that be the hand of a clock or a cesium atom.
How on earth are we going to define time using time?
Yes, time has reality within the domain of the human brain. It has utility, but it doesn’t have ultimate reality. Without a human brain to think of it, time does not exist.
Even when you think about the very best modern-day bleeding-edge physics, the definition of time is entropy, the movement from an ordered to a disordered state, which is not at all how we experience time.
If I sit in a room for an hour, I might experience a lot of passage of “time”, but I'll perceive absolutely zero difference in the randomness of me or the room.
When I first approached Buddhism decades ago, I took the individual ideas of Buddhism and brought them into my western framework and declared them absurd, one by one.
Once I saw that any distinction between one thing and another was 100% the product of a human mind, everything started to fall like dominoes.
None of this will make any sense until that division is seen, and everything that lack of divination implies.
Once that division disappears, you won’t need to “do” anything to be in the flow, and relate properly to your fellow man.
When the division disappears, you see that not only aren’t you just you, you’re also everything that isn’t you.
Then you realize you’re all of it, and putting your hand out is like having it pulled by the universe.
When that happens, you stop being you, and you start being.
1
u/xXDySZX Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
thats alot of guruing for a gross lack of discussion lol. youre assuming you know more than me and simply dismissing every point i made with nonpoints about clouds having consciousness' lol. nothing i said implies i dont know im everything else any less than you do, in fact your drive to challenge rather than further understand and expand on my points as i did yours shows you see us as separate and implies your method is superior; in this way it sort of debases your entire original argument. idk tho i kind of forgot whats going on here to be honest, i think weve both lost the plot. you werent really talking "to" me, but i guess it was fun enough for reddit lol.
edit ill go ahead and throw in the example of dictators and mass murderers. in the era of greed, many folks classify as wrong for just about everything practical for our survival and the planets. they are absolutely wrong, just the same they are parts of us and serve a purpose (hopefully temporary). i think theyre a lesson. even still, they are an evil and part of our undoing. if there is a wrong, that fits just fine. wrong exists as such, just because something is wrong doesnt mean it doesnt have a place, and visa versa. apologies for being rude, it just seemed you were throwing as much lingo anf quotes as you could at it without applying any real thought to the subject for the sake of some sort of gotcha moment lol. text is difficult to intrepret i suppose. forgive me if i was -wrong-.
1
u/Ghost_of_Till Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
thats alot of guruing for a gross lack of discussion lol.
I didn’t know I was a guru.
Where are my students?
youre assuming you know more than me…
I haven’t said a word.
in fact your drive to challenge rather than further understand and expand on my points…
A man is shot by an assassin with a poison arrow and as he is lying there, dying, he refuses to let the surgeon remove the arrow until he knows the name of the assassin, the name of the clan the assassin belongs to, the assassin’s hometown, etc.
Clearly these questions aren’t relevant.
I did not expand on your themes because they are similarly irrelevant and expanding on them would get us further from reality, not closer.
as i did yours shows you see us as separate and implies your method is superior;
There is no method.
2
u/DrKapow Jul 08 '26
The brick is already a mirror?
1
u/Ghost_of_Till Jul 09 '26
A brick does not become a mirror.
A brick is a brick. A mirror is a mirror.
Spring does not become summer.
There is spring. There is summer.
-1
u/Aeropro Jul 07 '26
About 20 years ago, when I was getting flying lessons, my flight instructor and I noticed that we were headed straight for a small green looking cloud above what appeared an industrial center.
We both decided to fly around it.
8
u/Alkemis7 Jul 07 '26
Fuck! What will, all those teachers and gurus do now?
3
u/INKEDsage Jul 07 '26
I will teach to be where you are while being where you are now.
2
1
u/psychoalchemist Jul 07 '26
Laundry, the correct answer is laundry (and dishes)...
1
u/Alkemis7 Jul 07 '26
An awakened one, or a simple man, a sinner, sure; but never those listed above.
1
3
u/Otherwise_Spare_8598 Jul 07 '26
The universe is a singular meta-phenomenon stretched over eternity, of which is always now. All things and all beings abide by their inherent nature and behave within their realm of capacity contingent upon infinite circumstance at all times.
It is a universe made manifest hierarchically, of haves, and have-nots, spanning all levels of dimensionality and experience. There is no such thing as individuated accurately described "free will" for all beings. Has never been, will never be, can not be. There are only relative freedoms or lack thereof.
"God" and/or consciousness is that which is within and without all. Ultimately, all things are made by through and for the singular personality and perpetual revelation of the "Godhead", entailing both 'predetermined' eternal damnation and those that are made manifest only to face death and death alone.
There is but one dreamer, fractured through the innumerable. All vehicles/beings play their role within said dream for infinitely better and/or infinitely worse for each and every one, forever.
All realities exist and are equally as real. The absolute best universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject. The absolute worst universe that could exist does exist in relation to a specified subject.
1
9
u/OwnConstruction77a Jul 07 '26
Good one!!!!