duszek wrote:Does a deep thought have to be [serious]?
You should all know: "Does a deep thought have to be [serious]?" is
exactly the type of question we want to ask here. It gets right to the heart of the matter 'via negativa' and delivers us from our preconceived notions. That's how we answer the question.
Zen Koan:
A master received a professor, who came to inquire about Zen. The master served tea. He poured the professor's cup full, but poured more. The professor watched the overflow until he shouted, "It is overfull! Some must go out!" "Like this cup," said the master, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. Empty!"
Questions like these help us "
empty the zen cup." They identify what is and what is not a trait of what we examine.
In fact, this example is—and I'm just now remembering my professor once used this expression—'so subtle and deep', that it was difficult for me to answer, because I had to reconsider where the seriousness or unseriousness came from, that-which-studies, or that-which-is-studied, the student or the subject?
This trait and this consideration also have many implications; imply considering the possibility of some unexpected things: is this whole sort of thing serious or unserious (some ancient philosophers say it is both: the most important thing in the world, and the least important thing in the world), does the seriousness or unseriousness of this single thing vary between multiple people, is it possibly serious in some ways, and not others, at some times, and not others? Ought we be serious or playful about such a potentially complex matter as this? Is it true, as Heraclitus says, that: "Mankind is most nearly himself when he achieves the seriousness of a child at play," and if so, isn't figuring out what the heck that means, and figuring out how the heck to do it, just the sort of thing a playful person gets serious about?