Teaching You Zazen 1: What the Hell Is Science
2007/5/10 8:47:01
Stocks carry too much killing energy, so I'm starting a new series: "Teaching You Zazen." Just like with stocks, in today's world, no one gets down to the root of things while also having the most practical, highest-level hands-on execution like this ID does—and zazen is the same. Zazen is neither Zen nor not-Zen, but modern people are consumed by formalism and their scheming minds refuse to die. They can't even get the hang of lip-service Zen, let alone real practical work like zazen—they're completely clueless. Then there's the nonsense of this practice and that practice, all of it eyes-wide-open blindness, every utterance a blunder. Just like with stocks, this method and that guru—those who blind people's eyes are as countless as grains of sand—and zazen is the same. Stocks grant people wealth; zazen grants people life. Neither can be neglected. In this entire world, the one who can throw open the gates of convenience for both—that can only be this ID. So this ID will take on a bit of trouble and spend some effort, and while the karmic connection with all of you hasn't yet expired, write it all out.
Nowadays science runs rampant, and activities like zazen naturally get classified under "superstitious hocus-pocus." But science has never gotten to the root of things. Take a very simple question: for example, you look at a flower. The reason you can see the flower, or have an image of the flower, has one most basic prerequisite—you must have an instrument that can form the flower's image, and a corresponding instrument to sense what the image-forming instrument produces. Science is actually this kind of thing: since every person has such instruments and corresponding sensory instruments, science first assumes the existence of a universal standard that can be acknowledged by as many people's instruments as possible—this is the foundational premise of scientific observation. For the most vile form of science, this standard is assumed to apply to all people or frames of reference, and everything that doesn't meet this standard gets excluded by science. For example, if everyone sees a flower as a flower, but you see that flower as a monkey, then for this most vile form of science, you're sick, and you need treatment to be conditioned into seeing the flower as a flower. Or, more directly, they declare you're not human, and then dispose of you. Science—that's what this thing is.
Let me tell you another big secret about science: the development of science is nothing more than the continuous extension of the principles of this most vile form of science. Note that this has nothing to do with so-called special cases or paradigm shifts in science—those are merely switches between standards, but this most basic principle remains unchanged. The science that opposes Christianity, and the science that Christianity opposes, are fundamentally the most Christian things of all—the biggest, most popular version of the Christian grand narrative. Note that this ID doesn't oppose science. This ID doesn't even oppose one-night stands or promiscuity here, so why would I oppose science? Do science or its devotees feel they're not even as good as one-night stands or promiscuity, afraid of being opposed by this ID? This ID negates not a single dharma, adds not a single dharma. Science is science—just strip it naked like a boy-toy and show it to everyone.
Don't let science's divine prowess make you dizzy. The so-called power of science—like enabling people to fly in planes day or night, or a single bomb annihilating millions—is just like the so-called miracles proclaimed by Christianity, or the so-called supernatural powers promoted by this or that qigong practice. The miracles and supernatural powers touted by those religions and practices, well, probably nobody can actually see them. But science can make all the people it recognizes see its miracles and supernatural powers under any circumstances—this is the so-called "verifiability." To put it in metaphor: those religions and practices are like boy-toys who claim extraordinary prowess but go limp the moment they step on stage. The science boy-toy, however, claims his prowess can be verified by everyone, and whenever he goes limp on stage—that is, when verification shows inconsistency with so-called objectivity—he goes backstage for a hormone shot and comes back. For example, Einstein pulled exactly this move on Newton.
Whether seeing is believing, or seeing is illusion, or even if you connect seeing and reality-or-illusion with the most complex relationship, the essential prerequisite is the same: all require eyes—that is, the instrument that forms the flower's image. Someone might say: well, can't we just apply science to the structure of the eye or the workings of the visual system? But when you let science play boy-toy with the eye or the visual system, you still can't escape the same prerequisite. Science has imprisoned itself within this prerequisite.
Where science shuts up, zazen begins.
Zazen doesn't require you to be sitting. If you can't practice zazen while having a one-night stand with a boy-toy, then such zazen is nothing but a sham. If you can't even practice zazen during a one-night stand, then when you're thrown into fire to burn, you certainly can't sit either—so what use is such zazen? Whether you're having a one-night stand or being thrown into fire, at what moment have you ever left zazen? When you're not doing zazen, you're in zazen. When you're doing zazen, you're in zazen. When you persist in zazen, you're in zazen. When you curse those who practice zazen as sons of bitches, you're in zazen. If you think crossing your legs or emitting a glow behind your head is zazen, you're still in zazen. You rob, steal, rape, and kill with every evil imaginable—you're still in zazen. Someone might ask: if we're always in zazen, why learn zazen? Precisely because you're always in zazen, you need to learn zazen. If there were truly one moment—say, when you're thrown into fire to burn—when you weren't in zazen, then what would be the point of learning zazen?
So then, when you're thrown into fire to burn, who is doing zazen? Investigate!
(To be continued)
Appendix:
This ID said yesterday that today would continue to oscillate. But I estimate that up until 14:45, everyone thought this ID was wrong, thinking those stock commentators hyping today's push to such-and-such points were right. How it turned out—no need for this ID to say. Oscillation doesn't necessarily mean a green-candle plunge. Just like a hub—oscillating below is oscillation, but oscillating above somehow isn't? Today's late-session decline is strictly guaranteed technically. Small-level divergence is of course the reason, plus there's the principle that a hub's trend must be complete. If you don't understand, study harder.
Regarding the hub formed by oscillation around 4000, to break through upward requires a third-type buy point. Otherwise, the possibility of a downward reversal still exists. Before a third-type buy point appears and the hub completes, oscillation continues. Looking at it from the intraday hub concept, yesterday was a balanced market, and so was today, but today the hub's position shifted upward. Tomorrow faces three choices: strong—continue shifting up; moderate—oscillate around today's hub; weak—retest yesterday's hub, thereby causing the hub in the general sense to undergo level expansion. Based on tomorrow's opening movement, this isn't hard to distinguish.
These are all very short-term activities. If your brain isn't up for it, just watch the 5-day moving average. This ID has said many times: act within your means, use the method you're most proficient with and can best control. Being a philanderer isn't something everyone can pull off—it takes a lot of skill to become one.
The new article will be posted in a new thread in 15 minutes. Please go to the new thread to read it.
Replies
缠中说禅 2007/5/10 15:36:28
This ID said yesterday that today would continue to oscillate. But I estimate that up until 14:45, everyone thought this ID was wrong, thinking those stock commentators hyping today's push to such-and-such points were right. How it turned out—no need for this ID to say. Oscillation doesn't necessarily mean a green-candle plunge. Just like a hub—oscillating below is oscillation, but oscillating above somehow isn't? Today's late-session decline is strictly guaranteed technically. Small-level divergence is of course the reason, plus there's the principle that a hub's trend must be complete. If you don't understand, study harder.
Regarding the hub formed by oscillation around 4000, to break through upward requires a third-type buy point. Otherwise, the possibility of a downward reversal still exists. Before a third-type buy point appears and the hub completes, oscillation continues. Looking at it from the intraday hub concept, yesterday was a balanced market, and so was today, but today the hub's position shifted upward. Tomorrow faces three choices: strong—continue shifting up; moderate—oscillate around today's hub; weak—retest yesterday's hub, thereby causing the hub in the general sense to undergo level expansion. Based on tomorrow's opening movement, this isn't hard to distinguish.
These are all very short-term activities. If your brain isn't up for it, just watch the 5-day moving average. This ID has said many times: act within your means, use the method you're most proficient with and can best control. Being a philanderer isn't something everyone can pull off—it takes a lot of skill to become one.
The new article will be posted in a new thread in 15 minutes. Please go to the new thread to read it.
缠中说禅 2007/5/10 15:50:00
Everyone please go easy and stop refreshing so hard—this ID can't get into the blog right now.
Please.
缠中说禅 2007/5/10 8:50:53
Market commentary will be in the appendix after market close. Since this ID needs to make a trip to Shenzhen, the technical analysis article on the market's medium-term trend mentioned last time will be posted this afternoon. No posts tomorrow.
Heading out, see you later.