Zen guy here
and I have to object to that.
What you ARE is before any thinking
and even before the idea "I am" arises.
Discussion
Ah! Yes! Correct.
My reason for grouping them together:
You have to know what you ARE in order to accept and adjust. I took it from Alan Watts's point of "wanting positive experiences is a negative experience, but accepting a negative experience is a positive one."
my point is that experiences come afterwards.
you dont have to know anything.
your original state is already enough.
A zen guy should know this is not true!
ok.
so explain what you are.
What can be said it's: your original statement was not false either
The emoji indicates that the answer was not pleasing, oh no! An impossible task was given. Explanation: the universe was only fucking with you, playfully.
Elaboration trial: On a relative level, the initial answer could be seen okay or something, but on an asolute level it is only another finger pointing to the moon like they say in zen ("they" say a lot in general btw). There is no true or false, and language can bring one only so far. To say who I am or who I really am is trying to freeze something in place or time. But the reality is probably closer to including everything as a process or something. And even to say something (e.g. I) exists is late because change has happened as it always does. We wouldn't want to try to freeze stuff at place or time because there is always change: anicca, impermanence.
At this time, the real answer to your question would be something like "As the universe, happeningness is being witnessed", and the real real answer is: "Don't know". And in haiku form the answer would be:
GM, coffee, yay
Enjoy the bright sunlight, friend
Contemplating stuff
mine was better than the morass of explanation you just wrote.
Zen people are a pain in the ass.
theyll tell you your elegant pointing is incorrect and write a fucking essay to make everything clear as mud.
Sorry for bothering you. Quite a superimposition on an idea about "zen people" being pain in the ass while at the same time announcing being a zen guy himself :) No need to keep missing the point and a joke (I didn't say "incorrect", I said a joke "not true", you just kept interpreting on an unsuitable level from the point of view of the joke), eluding a trial of having fun and starting fights. After all, initially you tried to correct the former claim but didn't quite reach the goal yet yourself - can't be done in language. So in this context, "better" is a funny word introducing a hierarchy again. I know, this annoying as fuck but this time it can be spelt out: it is foolery and wordplay.
To another matter, elegant pointing can be long form, T.S. Eliot for one did that, Leonard Cohen another one, both in pretty much the context we're talking here. But agreed, what was written was not elegant or very bright, but still a feeling of reading not having happened somewhere can be witnessed being left lingering in a body-mind at this location of the observable universe. But there arose a fondness towards your perhaps unintentional use of an intertextual reference to a metaphor that quite well describes zen practice as well: "like a lotus, at home in muddy water". Anyway, deeply sorry for bothering you. Let's not continue this. Anyway, as for alI sentient beings, wish you as well will find what the deep meaning of Kanzeon (almost your nickname!) is and that you'll learn why it is very relevant in zen, and how it relates to, for example, right speech or the Buddhist precepts overall - if you want to get to call yourself a zen guy, that is (or, not because of that but because of all sentient beings). Inb4 "no I'm zen guy not Buddhist".
I know, this is annoying as fuck but this time it can be spelt out: it is foolery and wordplay. Sorry for bothering you.
