I wrote the following after having a look at Master Dogen’s “Maka-hannya-haramitsu”. (Chapter 2 in the 95 chapters Shobogenzo)
- Fwiw. -
For more convenient reading click on the picture below where the text is.
Ridiculousness
There are forged works of art. If they may be so called.
- There may be a work worth x millions in case it real, - that is in case it is the work of some particular person, - and practically nothing in case it is not.
- And, - the ridiculous situation is, - that collectors of such pieces and adherents of these may be unable to tell which it is.
- I mean it is fine in itself that they are unable to identify the forged piece, as such, - but the value of a work of art explicitly depends on the artistic experience it might supply. - Everything relies on this. - A piece of art is not a drag, - not candy, - art is not entertainment, - not mere entertainment, - a thing being joyful does not make it into a piece of art, - but art begins with the artistic experience. It is the very foundation.
- Next may be the question of whether the experience is an actual artistic experience or whether it is not. Some may claim there is no such difference. Arguing with such [people] is of very little value.
However, - one reasonably engaged in the field ought to be able to tell the difference, - to a varying extent. - That is, I mean, - to be able to [fucking] identify an artistic experience, - that is, - (!) to identify a piece of art.
Back to where I began: - If one is unable to experience the experience the work of art has to offer, - if one is not able to enjoy it - What [tf] is the worth of it for him?!
- The point, the issue, - is not limited to that. People will pay enormous sums for paintings or drawings just because some particular person has painted or drawn them even if they carry no artistic value of themselves. This is idiotic. Practically idiotic. - Nothing less, - as it seems.
- Standards are set and humans follow. This is the way of the world. Couldn’t be otherwise, - these days. - Still, - such stupidity should not be viewed as a necessity. - But the example brought in the beginning here seems to make things more obvious. - The value of art, - is, - in the experience one can not miss. I mean one can miss but than he missed the art, - altogether. - Then one may be able to tell of the value of this experience. - Even if he is unable to analyse the experience does not lose its value. - But if he is unable to experience what is built in into the artistic thing, - what is inherent in it, - what has been worked into it, - he does not have to do with it, - but if he chooses to buy it, - it is like a blind man buying a book. Now do notice, - (!) in case it would be one person blind to the quality buying it for someone else or for the worth someone else may be willing to pay for it subsequently, it might have been able to make sense; - but it’s not what we are talking about: - There is the situation where no one is able to detect or see the actual value of a picture as a piece of art - and as it seems no one is even expected to - fucking idiots would just try to investigate who (!) made it, - and if it is a or b than they would find themselves satisfied and that’s it.
- Holy shit. Rather explicitly. So far.
- There may be a work worth x millions in case it real, - that is in case it is the work of some particular person, - and practically nothing in case it is not.
- And, - the ridiculous situation is, - that collectors of such pieces and adherents of these may be unable to tell which it is.
- I mean it is fine in itself that they are unable to identify the forged piece, as such, - but the value of a work of art explicitly depends on the artistic experience it might supply. - Everything relies on this. - A piece of art is not a drag, - not candy, - art is not entertainment, - not mere entertainment, - a thing being joyful does not make it into a piece of art, - but art begins with the artistic experience. It is the very foundation.
- Next may be the question of whether the experience is an actual artistic experience or whether it is not. Some may claim there is no such difference. Arguing with such [people] is of very little value.
However, - one reasonably engaged in the field ought to be able to tell the difference, - to a varying extent. - That is, I mean, - to be able to [fucking] identify an artistic experience, - that is, - (!) to identify a piece of art.
Back to where I began: - If one is unable to experience the experience the work of art has to offer, - if one is not able to enjoy it - What [tf] is the worth of it for him?!
- The point, the issue, - is not limited to that. People will pay enormous sums for paintings or drawings just because some particular person has painted or drawn them even if they carry no artistic value of themselves. This is idiotic. Practically idiotic. - Nothing less, - as it seems.
- Standards are set and humans follow. This is the way of the world. Couldn’t be otherwise, - these days. - Still, - such stupidity should not be viewed as a necessity. - But the example brought in the beginning here seems to make things more obvious. - The value of art, - is, - in the experience one can not miss. I mean one can miss but than he missed the art, - altogether. - Then one may be able to tell of the value of this experience. - Even if he is unable to analyse the experience does not lose its value. - But if he is unable to experience what is built in into the artistic thing, - what is inherent in it, - what has been worked into it, - he does not have to do with it, - but if he chooses to buy it, - it is like a blind man buying a book. Now do notice, - (!) in case it would be one person blind to the quality buying it for someone else or for the worth someone else may be willing to pay for it subsequently, it might have been able to make sense; - but it’s not what we are talking about: - There is the situation where no one is able to detect or see the actual value of a picture as a piece of art - and as it seems no one is even expected to - fucking idiots would just try to investigate who (!) made it, - and if it is a or b than they would find themselves satisfied and that’s it.
- Holy shit. Rather explicitly. So far.
Sameness
When asking if two things are the same, - there is the question of what you call “the same”. Ultimately, - since one thing which is not one other second thing, - is not that second thing - it is not the same as it. - No two things can be the same since initially by what you naturally define as “same” you want these two things to be the same in everything, - which practically includes the fact that one of them is not the other one.
- Even if in any and every other aspect there will not be any difference, - the very fact that one thing is one thing and the other one is another, - not the first one mentioned, - is a difference in itself.
Beside that we better remember, as it seems, - that we are talking about phenomenal things. Had we been discussing the Reality itself, - there is only one, - so there is nothing to compare it to. All else is said to be delusion. - The phenomenal world. The phenomenal worlds. - Where nothing is perfect and nothing is complete, - as far as I understand. All is partial, - unless you just observe everything, - as it seems. – But if we still wish to compare things there, - the above will apply, - we can only compare choosing certain particular characters, - not otherwise. Though otherwise we know too, - apparently, - that no two things will ever match completely, - otherwise their past and future have to match too, - and it will not be easy to expect this.
- Even if in any and every other aspect there will not be any difference, - the very fact that one thing is one thing and the other one is another, - not the first one mentioned, - is a difference in itself.
Beside that we better remember, as it seems, - that we are talking about phenomenal things. Had we been discussing the Reality itself, - there is only one, - so there is nothing to compare it to. All else is said to be delusion. - The phenomenal world. The phenomenal worlds. - Where nothing is perfect and nothing is complete, - as far as I understand. All is partial, - unless you just observe everything, - as it seems. – But if we still wish to compare things there, - the above will apply, - we can only compare choosing certain particular characters, - not otherwise. Though otherwise we know too, - apparently, - that no two things will ever match completely, - otherwise their past and future have to match too, - and it will not be easy to expect this.
A phenomenon (Written March 31st 2019)
There is almost no teacher, no true enlightened teacher I mean, - who presents things always in all fields exactly as they are. Since I was looking for a teacher, I happened to meet several. It seems to me unequivocally this is the situation.
The reasons are two: - The limitations of the listeners’ faith and understanding. People will not hear, sometimes, what they may not believe or what they would be unable to understand. The practical situation, may be, - that in reality one might not hear what basically he should, because another, who is also there, lacks in his trust of what is being said or in his spiritual ability of grasping certain things. For me personally this situation is sometimes terribly annoying. Sometimes not. Osho, for example, is terribly different from Yakusan. (Yakusan Igen, Yueshan Weiyan) And times are different too, today many things are difficult to say, and the further the audience a teacher wishes to address, - the narrower may be the limitations implied.
So far. I’ll drop it at that. I might just mention this post. And say the face of things may sometimes seem terribly ugly, particularly when things get emotional, even when true teachers spread their teaching in this world, - where ignorance is apparently incomparable and the emotional state of many (particularly today) touching ridiculousness.
So far.
The reasons are two: - The limitations of the listeners’ faith and understanding. People will not hear, sometimes, what they may not believe or what they would be unable to understand. The practical situation, may be, - that in reality one might not hear what basically he should, because another, who is also there, lacks in his trust of what is being said or in his spiritual ability of grasping certain things. For me personally this situation is sometimes terribly annoying. Sometimes not. Osho, for example, is terribly different from Yakusan. (Yakusan Igen, Yueshan Weiyan) And times are different too, today many things are difficult to say, and the further the audience a teacher wishes to address, - the narrower may be the limitations implied.
So far. I’ll drop it at that. I might just mention this post. And say the face of things may sometimes seem terribly ugly, particularly when things get emotional, even when true teachers spread their teaching in this world, - where ignorance is apparently incomparable and the emotional state of many (particularly today) touching ridiculousness.
So far.
The Merit of No Wisdom
David Bowie expresses what modern society does to us very well:
- From a song called “What’s really happening” from an album called “Hours”. - (- “'hours...'”, - as it originally appears on the album itself) Released in 1999.
“Grown into a plastic box,
“Micro thoughts & safety locks,
“Hearts become outdated clocks
“Ticking in your mind.”
“Micro thoughts & safety locks,
“Hearts become outdated clocks
“Ticking in your mind.”
- From a song called “What’s really happening” from an album called “Hours”. - (- “'hours...'”, - as it originally appears on the album itself) Released in 1999.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)