Path: ultra.sonic.net!nntp.dnai.com!uunet!pao.uu.net!sea.uu.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.direct.ca!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail From: ifga13@my-deja.com Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.zen Subject: Re: What is the significance of this Koan? Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1999 17:38:18 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't. Lines: 145 Message-ID: <7rr9u8$lp6$1@nnrp1.deja.com> References: <01befefd$6a984e60$5fef1ed1@default> <7robgo$gb2$1@nnrp1.deja.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.201.108.52 X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Sep 16 17:38:18 1999 GMT X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt) X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x42.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 209.201.108.52 X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDifga13 Xref: ultra.sonic.net alt.philosophy.zen:25294 It appears that I study the old-fashioned Zen. Most of my books are from the 50's and 60's. I'm not up on your 90's Zen. It appears a lot has changed in the last few decades. I must say your understandings differ considerably from my sources (Christian Humphreys, Robert Linssen, Lu K'uan Yu [Charles Lux] to name a few). Although I spent a lot of time in my studies, that was 25 years ago. For the most part my current understandings are very general, and in a general way most of what you say I disagree with. Since my books have been boxed so long it is difficlut for me to get specific in all areas, but I think a few examples will serve to show what I mean. If I understand you correctly you hold these beliefs concerning koans: First: "There is only one answer to a koan,...doesn't mean the words might be a bit different" Also: Although you have full understanding of most of the koans and their answers as presented in this NG, it is not proper (in the best interest of the student) for you to even hint at an answer. This is not how it is done. I think a good place to start is with the shit stick koan. You say "here is a koan and the answer to it: Q:What is buddha? A: a shit stick. Now this is the complete question and answer." This is only the koan, and does not include the answer. Although you feel discussing the answer is not allowed (my words), Lu K'Uan Yu, disagrees with you. In his book "Ch'an and Zen Teaching" he has this to say: "We cannot, however, blame these masters for their seemingly obscure and abstruse sayings, because as soon as they used the terminology coined by the conditional human intelligence, their disciples would cling to it, thus straying from the normal course of training. When a monk asked Yun Men: 'What is Buddha?' the master knew that the questioner's mind was stirred by the empty word 'Buddha' and, in order to disentangle it from the illusion of Buddha, replied: 'A toilet stick.' [So, you see, the student asks the question "What is Buddha?", and the master replies 'A toilet stick', thus setting up the koan. You have it exactly backward. 'A toilet stick' is not the answer, its the koan.] Lu K'Uan Yu continues: In this there was no disrespect for the Enlightened One, as the reply served only to wash the deluded mind of the disciple from this impure conception, for the Buddha as conceived by a deluded mind could never be the pure Buddha, who is beyond description. This particular case should not, however, be generalized, for the reply was appropriate only for the question at that particular moment. For this reason, Yun Men forbade his disciples to record his sayings. [This is one of many examples where the message is clear (to me at least). Koans are specific. The answer and undersanding is for a particular situation, a particular student. What is true and correct in this situation does not hold in another stuation. The purpose of a koan is to free the mind. Since we all have a different mind, different roadblocks, the understanding will differ from student to student because the need differs. A single koan does not lead to the same understanding by all students.] Although you feel that commentary on a koan is not a good thing, Robert Linseen, in his book "Living Zen" disagrees with you. He presents this Koan and commentary: 'At the beginning, the mountains are mountains. In the middle, the mountains are no longer mountains. At the end, the mountains are once again mountains.' Commentaries: The interpretation of this text gives a panoramic vision of the stages leading to Satori according to Zen thought. At the same time we must insist on the fact that these phases apply to the period preceeding Satori and not to the experience itself. The latter is devoid of any sense of progression or degree: it is instantaneous. During the period preceding all research we do not throw doubt on anything, nor do we devote thought to the great problems of existence. When we see mountains we merely say: 'These mountains are moutains.' Their exterior contours which are apparent to our eyes are their only reality. Rocks but rocks, and earth is only earth. When we awake and begin to seek we discover that nothing is permanent, that everthing moves and is transformed. Instead of the rocks and the earth and the mountains we discern the action of a prodigiously active energy which moves with the swiftness of lightning. We tend progressively to notice the impermanence of things and beings. We are on the path to the discovery of the profound nature of the universe and of ourselves. Their superficial apperarance tends to take on a secondary and derivative role in face of the common essence. When we look at the mountains, during this phase, they are no longer mountains, They seem like a mirage which is devoid of all real consistence. In reaction to our complete ignorence at the beginnig we tend to orient ourselves in the directly opposite direction. The sense of reality which we attributed to matter is transferred to the pure essence in an equally unilateral attitude. In a word, matter has become for us the 'veil', 'maya'. The mountains are regarded as pure illusion. It may happen, however, that we perceive that no scission exists between the material world and that of pure essence. These distinctions arise from a lack of penetration on the part of our mind. Everything is Reality. Not a speck of dust is outside this Totality- that-is-One which the Zen masters call 'Cosmic Mind'. From that moment, when our eyes alight upon the mountains, we say as in the beginning: the mountains are mountains, We have returned to matter, but we have a new vision of it. Our vision is no longer confined exclusively to its material or to its spiritual aspect. It is no longer illusion or 'maya'. The creator of illusions has been finally unmasked: it is none other than our oun mind. Our attitude of mind has undergone a complete metamorphosis. When we now say : 'The mountains are mountains', these same words express a panormic vision which comprehends both the relative 'surface' apperarance and absolute Reality. It is a question here of an intergration that can neither be described not thought. At last we play the 'Game of the World', while free from it. We attribute a correct value to separate beings and things. We are free from attachment and from identification with superficial appearances. We are free. Concerning your answers to my question, I'm afraid you missed the point entirely in most cases. Zazen is one possible tool to be used on the path. Many of my books make no mention of it at all. It is not "required". There are (or were 30 years ago) two schools of thought, one saying sitting meditation is best, the other saying working with the hands and body works just as well. The classic example of this work is raking, but raking is only an example. This seemed to go right over your head. The correct posture for raking is raking, not zazen. Your "probably after a quick buck" comment about Zen authors was really off the wall. Must have come from your 90's Zen. You seem to want to speak with authority, but frankly I don't see it. This is not based on my mind or my understanding. Rather on comparing your comments with my "teachers" (books). I have unboxed my texts which were packed away since my last move. [I love the smell of old books.] Like Zen, they are not the answer, but the finger pointing the way. Old friends that I look forward to meeting again. Good luck on your journey. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Share what you know. Learn what you don't.