AI Zen Master

[u/ewk]

Since it's so easy to drop a Zen text or even multiple Zen texts into an llm and ask questions that the llm will answer from the standpoint of the text?

* www.reddit.com/r/Zen/wiki/getstarted

Doesn't it make sense that there would be a lot less confusion and a lot more interesting conversations??

Plus, if you have an llm answer questions about the texts then who better to explain why Zazen Shinto-Buddhism and Alan Epstein Watts are not part of the tradition?

Serious question.

Where are all my AI Zen Masters at?

[u/ewk]

Please look up the term.

You are confused.

[u/origin_unknown → u/ewk]

I'll grant that its not exactly a strong case for appeal to authority, but I'll ask that you go back and see that's not exactly what I called it.

They are none the less, assertions without support. I think calling them appeals was just a sharp term, meaning more specifically naked appeals.

This is all still sidetrack on a lack of quotes.

[u/ewk → u/origin_unknown]

One of the other things that's happening here is that and you want them to explicitly define every aspect of their culture. You don't allow any descript their culture based on what they do and what they record themselves as having done.

This is the classic problem with precept behavior. We see all of them always keeping the precepts. They don't tell people to take the precepts. But you can't understand they're teachings if you don't take into account that they're a precept culture.

Maybe try searching "lived practice"

[u/origin_unknown → u/ewk]

It's not about my expectations for zen masters defining anything at all.

More like I can remind you of zen masters like Dahui and Yantou in particular warning about objects of esteem (which is where we started) becoming nests and hindrances.

I wanted to see if you might find it, related quotes about all things esteemed. Instead, it became "my fault" for raising it.

[u/ewk → u/origin_unknown]

Illiterate zen Masters?

Zero.

So.thats esteem. On a cultural level? If not, on a philosophical level.

[u/origin_unknown → u/ewk]

I think it's funny you'd kick out Huineng just to try and win a petty argument.

You're really reaching.

[u/ewk → u/origin_unknown]

He wasn't illiterate. Nobody thinks that.

And since that's the only one you got from a thousand years of records

Sry 4 pwnimg u

[u/origin_unknown → u/ewk]

If he wasn't, it's news to me, sure. Details?

Me not knowing that doesn't mean possessing a common ability to read is the same as holding it in esteem. It doesn't explain why anyone anywhere would burn the text.

I learned not to take claims at face value, from you. But you aren't doing the thing. You're trying to get me to bite without offering anything of substance to sink my teeth into.

"Sry" u feel need to claim pwn.

[u/ewk → u/origin_unknown]

If you have one example from a thousand years and that one's not even a real example... Why don't you just admit you're wrong?

When that kind of thing happens. We begin to drift from a normal adult conversation to a Something's wrong conversation.

[u/origin_unknown → u/ewk]

You haven't provided any examples either. So why won't you admit that you're wrong?

You still can't say why a regular ability to read and write is holding literacy in esteem. There are no supporting statements being provided, just it's this because I said it's this.

[u/ewk → u/origin_unknown]

I'm providing all the examples. Everybody in a thousand years. All of them read everything. All of them soaked up history and culture. Culture of literates.

[u/origin_unknown → u/ewk]

So you keep insisting, in spite of anything you can quote about esteem or zen masters holding things in esteem.

You can suggest things by your own inference, but that doesn't make it so, and you aren't providing anything but your own inference and asking me to accept it.

[u/ewk → u/origin_unknown]

I point out that there's a huge history of literacy and education. I acknowledge it is a cultural characteristic rather than a teaching.

You reply with denial of fact.