The monkey is neither a blessing nor a curse. He's some kind of a messenger . . . Maybe he's the 'reality'? That's what the boy encountered in the woods: Reality telling him how life really is like.

Acceptance probably still plays a role then.

And regarding what the boy wants . . . that's a tricky one. Haven't really given it much thought. Hm.

I really want to figure this one out.

_________________
Journal/Blog: journal-little-panda-vt135329.html

Kasabi did. Last time I assume people will pay attention to a previous post when I select the key sentence from it.

Well I just had a goofy interpretation of this. The monkey is the boy's mother. Dunno how, but hey it's a mythological universe, anything is possible. Hell if I know who the father would be in that case.

Hobbit, you don't know what ad hominem means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Kasabi talked about compassion, which is a moral issue. In case there was any doubt, when I said
the word "people" was referring to you specifically. I was trying to be somewhat polite.

The koan tells you exactly who the monkey is. Stop searching for something the koan doesn't mention, the answer is right there.

Compassion forms a function in morality. But this Koan is not about morals. Compassion was brought up becuase people when trying to answer this Koan are overly concerned with beating the Koan and have forgotten about all the people involved.

You're on to something with that. Focus on the monkey and why what you said there is important.

Those who think have the answer are steering others towards THE ANSWER instead of encouraging the state of mindfulness that facilitates understanding.

1. There is no correct answer . . . only correct thinking.

2. Those who think have the 'answer' . . . what will you do if the monkey simply continues to stare at the boy?

Which is why I say the answer is Meaningless and Absurd. Once this is realized, the puzzle does not require further contemplation.
The rules of the mythological universe are unknown upon entry. One can only learn the rules by interacting with them. As it is an unknown universe, and not our own, the consequences are not important. For all we know, having a dead mother and father might be the ultimate possible source of Good in this universe, and the monkey is preventing us from achieving that end.

Typically, in hypothetical situations you assume everything is similar to reality unless it is mentioned otherwise or would contradict what is mentioned. I'm sure you've encountered hypotheticals before and had no issue with this, so I think this criticism is a dishonest or at least poorly thought out one.

Assume you want to keep your parents alive.

Correct thinking does not equal NO THINKING.

I know the bow and arrow symbolize people from all walks of life coming together in order to make things work. If the bow and arrow never come together, then society as a whole could not work. I still haven't been able to find out what the bush, boy, and other things mean yet :/...

You know, I don't know if there is a correct answer. It just sent me into a deep thought and.. I enjoyed it. I feel very peaceful, thank you for that moment.

_________________
"At the end of the day these are women's lives we're dealing with, not mere entertainment."

"We are what we repeatedly do. excellence therefore is a habit and not an act."

As far as I am concerned in this case it does. Once the puzzle has been thought about, one realizes that it's an underconstrained problem and conclusions are impossible. One moves on to other tasks.
This social contract is heavily violated from the get-go. I'm offered a talking monkey. He seems to have magical powers over the lives of my parents, or is aware of other forces that have such powers. This isn't that different from believing in God or an Afterlife, and FYI I'm an Atheist. So no, I don't think it's a stretch to say that since I don't know why this monkey can talk or where the magic powers are coming from, I don't know what "the best" results in this universe are either. I'd worry about keeping my parents alive if that were possible, but in the situation posed it is not. Having to deal with such a problem, where your rights, dignity, and sense of well being in the universe are suddenly violated, is what the Existentialists call Absurd.

I wrote the "parents held at gunpoint" post to ground the dilemma in tangibles. It's an Atheist Materialist universe in which one or more persons is very likely to die. The Existentialists would also call this problem Absurd. You were minding your own business, talking to your parents, then you get clocked in the back of the head. Did you ask for this to happen? No, you didn't. The difference, as compared to the Monkey Mind problem, is it asks the reader to deal with what they would actually do in the real world. There is no emphasis on "how you think" or someone's view of what "correct thinking" is.

I don't think about the puzzle. I think about people who go on and on about the puzzle and notions of "correct thinking."
Nope. And because people either don't respond to "your parents held at gunpoint," or start thread jacking that I just want to be part of the cool kid's club, I feel like refuting it here. I tend to feel like it when I'm bored with other posts on this site. Maybe if a reminder of dissent happens every so often, someone somewhere will have the awakening that Zen isn't particularly special, and doesn't particularly own anything about consciousness, mental states, or how to live one's life. Great if it helps you personally, but there are an awful lot of philosophical systems out there that deal with taking control of your own mind.

Well . . . here's the thing. Obviously, there's no argument that you have absolutely no understanding for zen. There's also no argument that you have absolutely no knowledge base for zen. Did you ever read a book on the topic? So you've told us that all of this is bullshit and it's useless but every supporting argument you reply on has NOTHING to do with this topic. You've pulled so many unrelated topics out of your ass here, it's comical.

Let's say for the sake of this argument that you're a neurosurgeon. What would you tell the moron who tells you he knows JUST AS MUCH as you do about neurosurgery after having read a thread in a forum and tells you that neurosurgery is bullshit because break dancing is a good alternative to neurosurgery? Don't laugh, this is what you've been doing here. The moron cannot discuss the virtues or limitations of neurosurgery because he lacks understanding and knowledge base for NEUROSURGERY. You cannot logically discuss the virtues or limitations of zen because you know NOTHING of the topic. You have written nothing about zen here, instead, you've replaced this discussion topic for 'everything else' that you think you know.

If you have a habit of this on an anonymous forum, you probably have a tendency to play the know it-all buffoon clown in real life. The positive outcome from your act is a hearty laugh at your expense. The negative outcome for these habits can in fact be disaster.