30 Days of MHS 5.5g

[apollolux]

I once inner-tubed down the Icheetucknee river (Sp?) in central Florida.

During my journey down the incredibly clear blue river, my uncle happened to see a can of Coke, unopened, on the bottom of the river. When he pointed it out, I considered diving for it, and then realized that the river was much deeper at that spot, and faster flowing, than it appeared to be. I knew that it was there because it was very difficult to reach, and I told him so.

He insisted that it was only five or six feet deep, and dove for it. Only to find that the river, at that point, was at least 15 feet deep, and the current below the surface was much faster than the surface current. Try as he might, even as a surfer in peak shape, he could not reach it.

During the rest of the day, as it turned out, we happened to have our lunch directly in front of that spot. We watched again and again as countless others tried - and failed - to get that can of Coke.

Now... what does this have to do with the definition of "zen"?

Just because many misunderstand a deep and subtle concept and think it is much shallower and simpler than it is, does not mean that it is not a deep and subtle concept that is much more complex than it appears. Zen is what it is, regardless of what the masses think, or how much they prove their ignorance by trying to tear down others who are achieving success.

I felt compelled to read and reread and reread again this anecdote, Shannon, as I seem to have gotten something out of it possibly different than originally intended.

1. You say you "knew" the can was there "because it was difficult to reach." I apologize that I can't yet consciously let this particular point go. To me, the only definitive way to know why the can was there would have been to see what happened between when the can first appeared there and when you reached it; it could have just as easily fell/dropped/been tossed/etc there a few minutes before you arrived as much as a few hours before, and the reasoning could have been "the can falling wasn't noticed" as much as "people failed to retrieve it because water depth." I will most certainly give you credit for being extremely astute in that instance and coming to a Sherlock Holmes conclusion about the water depth running on almost nothing but assumption, though.

2. You "considered diving for it" and chose not to. Some might say that you didn't even bother trying based solely on the aforementioned assumption. Even though in the end you were most certainly correct about the water, sometimes people have a hard time agreeing with what's correct unless they do the thing/run the experiment/dive for the can/etc themselves, "prove" for themselves, and I'd wager that's probably a pretty significant source of resistance to accepting the facts or opinions of others.