The problem comes from the claim that at some point logic isn’t going to help you. Like I linked in the Lions Roar article about conceptualization, he says that reality isn’t what we think it to be. That the reality of existence is this sort of non conceptual silence, one that logic can’t get you too. Even the nature of Koans themselves is to reveal the flaws that comes from a logical mindset. Like he mentions that we think there to be a self or a body but it’s just a collection of parts. The cities don’t really exist out there just in our own minds, as long as we continue to call them such, the same goes with Countries. Or how he says there are no grandparents or grandchildren but just our concepts of them, in reality it’s all just forms.
I know it was long but otherwise it seems to make sense and I don’t have a reply. I mean concepts to me just point to things (or forms according to him) that exist in the world. The form of parent and child (just to use his words) doesn’t change biology. But still the claim that logic has to be left behind in order to understand seems to be a major theme (the heart sutra is pretty much saying “forget everything we told you”), and that thinking in terms of separate independent entities or “options” is part of the illusion.
I want to live according to what is the truth, but the problem is that everyone seems to have the answer to that and I don’t know who to listen to. I don’t want to be deceived and live a lie, but it’s hard for me to ignore the testimony of those who follow this. EVen the people who gave testimonials from the Broward meditation claim to see the world better or have a more realistic view of their relationships (whatever that means) and that those who did it are 99% happier if they did all the levels.
I’ll admit I am gullible, but deeper than that I am scared. I haven’t truly questioned my worldview from growing up and I don’t know what to do or where to go, or how to deal with people who emphatically insist that things are not the way I was taught that they are.
Some of this is definitional - specifically, it’s him refusing to accept a definition and then thinking that his refusal is somehow profound. Sort of like if I said, “I don’t drive a vehicle; I drive a Kia Soul.” And then you say “But a Kia Soul is a vehicle.” And then I say “No it isn’t a vehicle; it’s a Kia Soul and that’s all it is.” That’s not being profound, that’s being an idiot. (And possibly a jackass.)
I’ve never heard a Koan that didn’t sound like similar jackassery. They don’t reveal holes in logic; they reveal that the so-called profound person thinks that words and concepts are shocking and confusing.
Suffice to say, there’s nothing wrong with labels and concepts, and there’s nothing wrong with the idea that there can be things which are collectives of other things, or even arbitrarily defined. There’s nothing confusing or invalid about any of this, and the people who are confused by it are just stupid or confused.
You would do well not to let them confuse you.
These dipshits claim that you have to abandon logic to understand them because their shit is incoherent nonsense and if you don’t suspend your thought processes you’d never accept it.
Seriously, when somebody tell you you have to stop thinking to understand what they’re saying, grab your wallet and walk away. Nobody who requires you to stop thinking is telling you the truth, ever.
I get that you want to live in the real world. These dipshits don’t want you to live in the real world. Heck, they’re pretty blatant about it. The ultimate goal in their view is to cease to interact with the world and then subsequently cease to exist.
But it’s hard to argue that most of what we consider to be real is more like our own creations. Like the idea of “home” even though “home” is more like just furniture inside a house/apartment. The sensation of “home” isn’t out there in reality but only in our minds.
For some reason you seem to think that our minds and consciousness are not ‘real’.
You are defining ‘reality’ as some arbitrary subset of what exists.
You are choosing to regard your own mind as non-existent or unreal. You are saying that what is ‘out there’ is real and what is ‘in here’ is not real, even though what is ‘out there’ can only be perceived by what is ‘in here’. Can you explain why you think this?