To The Word Juggler

Unfortunately for the recipients of these lines, handling contradictions may not be sufficient to master Zen.
Not even to start setting foot on the Zen path.

The trick is that, such entertaining juggling that one indulges in when throwing two paradoxical terms in the air is quite efficient when it comes to attracting attention.

Eyes follow one, then the other, and come back to the first ball as they both reflect surrounding lights and hypnotize spectators.

Such a sham magician, a wordy illusionist keeps people entertained, therefore diverted from the authentic course along the Way.

There might come a night when this person will lay his sparkling conceptual tools on the floor and remain silent.

For the time being, he paces up and down the river bank, leading a herd with their eyes fixes on paradoxical balls.
Such a skill is one of the worst enemies on the Way.
It may also be a net knitted on purpose to drain mind energy, to wear out intellectuals and word-jugglers… A carefully deployed pedagogical device a Master would resort to protect genuine practice.

©FJ March 2022
RecueilsParticipations
Telegram (Publications et Pratique)
Many thanks to all.

5 commentaires

  1. My understanding was that paradox might be employed as a sort of logical psychedelia to expand the mind or increase its receptivity. I might have this entirely wrong, but is that not one, or maybe « the », use of a koan?
    Not really my preference, admittedly. My mind is vacuous enough without being exploded.
    Of course, such use does not predicate public display, which I agree to be antithetical to any useful meditation.

    Aimé par 1 personne

    1. Thank you Simon
      I have so much delight
      Reading your comments.
      They often override/outweigh in quality any answer I could utter.
      Which is why don.t write anything…

      Aimé par 1 personne

  2. Thanks for the compliment, but, I think, we are both merely seekers, in our own individual fashion. From different backgrounds and thought strucures. It is your different approach that makes your thought of value to me. If my musing has any advantage to you, it may be for a similar reason.

    Aimé par 1 personne

    1. It is very nice of you to append « structure » to « thought » when referring to my content.
      Very bold, as well, if we consider it in relation to reality.

      I also realize that thoughts and structure are two elements I’ve been trying to stay away from for years…
      Thoughts, when left unwatched, always end up aggregating…The result of such cluster, once we become accustomed to them, is often called ‘structure ».

      When « thoughts » are bundled in a « structure », they quickly become a product requiring an owner, a patent, a marketing positioning approach, a communication strategy and competitor monitoring watch.

      all this giving birth to the very phenomenon we –each in our own way — denounced in another post. (self branded masters)

      Sorry to inflict this early morning rambling on you.
      I am perfectly aware it is absolutely disconnected from the context.
      This, I find highly enjoyable.

      You see, this is what happens when I answer to comments and let my untamed fingers scamper across the keyboard on a day off.

      Now you probably understand why I don’t reply that much.

      (this is written in a playful, tongue-in cheek-way…I mention this as I refrain empower emoticons with the power to reflect my emotional activity, and know people tend to become increasingly unable to identify this tone in a texted deprived of such emotional homogenization agents.)
      THis latter remark was, as well, intended as a joke.

      Have a very nice day Simon
      May it be playful and lighthearted

      Aimé par 1 personne

  3. No need to apologise for rambling. I am far too prone to that myself to censure another. Nor am I concerned about frequency of responses.
    Your playfulness, however, hides ideas too complex to explore fully via a phone on a work day.
    Thought may be more or less unstructured, but our intellectual histories would seem to create a structure from which we process thought. Can this be avoided? Is not the absence of thought, as pure being, itself a thought? Is this a paradox itself inescapable? Perhaps what Crowley meant by annihilating nothingness… (that is a note to myself – I do not recommend reading Crowley unless you are happy to deal with some disturbed « thoughts »).

    Is there not a difference between one’s personal, inescapable thought structure (of which the challenge is not to be the slave rather than to claim mastery) and corporate, publicised, even commercialised systemic philosophy, of which claimed mastery and self aggrandisement are indistinguishable?

    As to emoji’s, I merely say 🤣👍

    This is what your playful rambling gets you! Feel free to play with the above, or not, as you see fit and to your heart’s content…!

    Have a good day.

    J’aime

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion /  Changer )

Connexion à %s