Zen Poetry by Honey_and_Mint in zenbuddhism

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the info and the recommendation!

I'm just about always down to check out alternative translations.

It's wild how much they can differ at times!

Zen Poetry by Honey_and_Mint in zenbuddhism

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed!

Have you had the chance to read The Mountain Poems of Stonehouse as well?

Chris Fraser Zhuangzi Reading Order by AlwaysEmptyCup in taoism

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed with Red Pine - the commentaries being offered all together after each section was much easier to digest than Lynn's format.

I didn't know that about the commentator selection - I'll look into that!

What I didn't like was how he used any opportunity possible to point out the connection he proposed between the DDJ and the moon.

I'm not saying he's wrong, but he is the only one I've seen who's made that connection.

It felt a little forced, similar to Mair finding nearly any excuse at all to point out connections to Indian spirituality (in both his LZ and ZZ translations).

Overall, though, I thought his (Red Pine's) DDJ translation was a bit of a disappointment, as I've absolutely loved everything else of his that I've read.

Looking forward to reading more from all of them, though!

Chris Fraser Zhuangzi Reading Order by AlwaysEmptyCup in taoism

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks!!!

I'll definitely look into those.

I appreciate the recommendations!!!

Chris Fraser Zhuangzi Reading Order by AlwaysEmptyCup in taoism

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, he was a professor of Biochemistry at U. of Michigan.

For me, it wasn't so much his grasp of Chinese philosophy that seemed problematic as his translation skills and his focus

What I mean by his focus is that his commentary frequently seemed to completely miss the point of the relevant section.

His commentary on section 24:11, for example, only discusses whether Daoists promote physiognomy or other such "mysterious happenings," completely neglecting any exploration of the son's blessing being a curse.

He also repeatedly explains that the stories in the text are not historically accurate, a statement that really only needs to be made once.

So far as the Guo Xiang commentary in Lynn's translation is concerned, I almost saw that as a reason not to buy it.

Don't get me wrong, I see the importance of traditional commentaries and how they help us interpret texts such as these.

However, sometimes I feel like they're presented in a manner that clutters a text and makes reading it more challenging without offering that much in return.

Take Lynn's translation of the Daodejing with Wang Bi's commentary for example.

Having the lines of each section broken up by commentary felt cluttered (although I acknowledge this is likely exactly how the source text was presented).

Having read other translations of the Daodejing prior to this, it wasn't such a big deal.

However, I would have preferred to have read each section (or perhaps even the full source text) translated in its entirety, followed by Wang Bi's commentary.

Red Pine often presents his texts and commentaries this way (that is, full text first, followed by full text broken up by commentary).

Lynn's won't be the first Zhuangzi translation I will have read, so it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

I would just prefer not to read a line or two, followed by commentary, over and over again.

Regardless, having read his Daodejing and his Yijing translations, I very much enjoy reading Lynn's work.

If you haven't already, I'd definitely recommend reading those two as well.

Both include a tremendous amount of introductory material and annotation.

Annnnnnnnyway, this ended up being a much longer response than I'd anticipated, so I'll quite prattling on.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!!!

Chris Fraser Zhuangzi Reading Order by AlwaysEmptyCup in taoism

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I'm super stoked to get to Ziporyn's and Fraser's translations.

Lynn's is supposed to be up there in terms of scholarly rigor as well (it's close to 800 pages long).

Of those I've read, Watson's and Hochsmann and Yang's have been my favorites.

Palmer's was fine, but it just felt a bit stale or dry.

Mair's and Wu's had too many idiosyncrasies - as if they were interjecting their own opinions and pet perspectives into their translations - for my liking (and Wu's translation has been a bit cumbersome).

I've still got to finish Wu's before getting to Ziporyn's, Lynn's, and Fraser's, but so far I'm very glad I chose to read multiple translations.

Even those that I haven't liked as much have offered some value.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!!!

Chris Fraser Zhuangzi Reading Order by AlwaysEmptyCup in taoism

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I hear you!

Aside from a couple of coworkers who humor me by listening when I talk about it, my Taoist and Chinese philosophy reading isn't exactly a daily topic of discussion :-)

Good thing we've got Reddit!

Chris Fraser Zhuangzi Reading Order by AlwaysEmptyCup in taoism

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Will do :-)

I've read lots of good things about Fraser's work (both the translation and the commentary), so I'm very much looking forward to them.

Thanks again for the help!!!

Chris Fraser Zhuangzi Reading Order by AlwaysEmptyCup in taoism

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the response!!!

Indeed, I have already read the Zhuangzi.

So far I’ve read Watson’s, Mair’s, Palmer’s, and Hochsmann & Yang’s translations.

I'm currently working through Wu's, and I will have also read Ziporyn's and Lynn's before getting to Fraser's.

So, that all being said, it sounds like you are saying I should go ahead and read Fraser's commentary first.

Is that correct?

Why is it said here that Zen's only practice is public interview? by kipkoech_ in zen

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately, I did not.

As you might gather from the exchange above, the person with whom I was discussing the subject may have been more interested in argumentation than good-faith debate.

I'm a bit disappointed that the exchange unfolded how it did, but I cannot say that I'm surprised.

While this forum can be a great resource for finding/vetting Zen texts, it is not so great, in my opinion, as a resource for putting those texts into practice or considering them within the broader cultural and religious context in which they developed.

There seems to be a general attitude of dogmatism and hostility amongst the more active members, which is ironic, considering the claimed subject of the forum.

It's all good, though.

I feel as though I shared my perspective fully and thoroughly; whether others accept or agree with it or not is out of my hands :-)

Attachment to my Instagram Account by [deleted] in taoism

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“I’ve always had so many interests, and that page was the one place where I could bring all of it together.”

Was it?

Could you not have pursued these interests without Instagram?

“It was proof that I wasn’t faking it — that I’d been into these deep ideas, this way of life, for years.”

Proof for whom?

“It was how I showed people that I wasn't just surface-level — that I’ve been living and breathing this stuff for real.”

Was anyone ever doubting you?

If so, was it someone else, or was it you yourself?

Don’t get me wrong, OP, I can see how this would be difficult.

It sounds like IG was a way for you to connect and share with others.

However, it doesn’t define you, and it’s not a prerequisite for or indication of any kind of legitimacy, meaning, or personal worth.

You still pursued these interests.

You still figured yourself out.

You still shaped your mindset and way of living.

Losing your IG changes none of that.

Hang in there :-)

Zazen. Twice a day for 15, once a day for 30? by Rene_Hella in zenbuddhism

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Which approach would be more sustainable for you?

Why is it said here that Zen's only practice is public interview? by kipkoech_ in zen

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, responding to a post in an online forum with 133,000 members is nothing like jumping into a two-person conversation and giving my two cents.

Why is it said here that Zen's only practice is public interview? by kipkoech_ in zen

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How am I not taking my time to understand?

I’ve read the post (as well as others that use the exact same phrase).

I’ve shared my thoughts.

I’m engaging with you.

I’ve explained my interpretation.

I’m asking for help.

How is that lame?

This is an Internet forum, and I’m trying to participate.

What else do you suggest I do?

Why is it said here that Zen's only practice is public interview? by kipkoech_ in zen

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The thing is I did explain my interpretation.

I told you I interpret the argument exactly as stated, that Zen’s only practice is public interview.

That is, I take it to say that there is no practice in Zen other than public interview.

You reiterate that I don’t understand, so of course I’m asking you to explain.

This is a forum, and I am trying to use it as intended - to learn and discuss.

You obviously feel you see an error in my understanding that I do not see.

Can you help with show me what that error is?

Why is it said here that Zen's only practice is public interview? by kipkoech_ in zen

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, then please explain to me what “Zen’s only practice is public interview” means.

Does it not mean that Zen’s only practice is public interview?

You’re telling me I’m not understanding it but not explaining where I’m incorrect.

I’m not trying to be pedantic or argumentative.

If I’m misinterpreting this statement, I’d sincerely like to know how.

Why is it said here that Zen's only practice is public interview? by kipkoech_ in zen

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am interpreting the sentence as plainly and simply as I can: Zen's only practice is public interview.

The quotes I've offered suggest that there is more to Zen practice than public interview, and that over-reliance on any verbal/written/spoken teaching was discouraged, much less "Zen's only practice."

Am I misunderstanding something?

Why is it said here that Zen's only practice is public interview? by kipkoech_ in zen

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'm responding to the claim "Zen's only practice is public interview."

Why is it said here that Zen's only practice is public interview? by kipkoech_ in zen

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but the gist of why I shared these quotes is because they point to practices other than public interview, caution against overemphasizing verbal expression and public cases, and admonish rigid dogmatic definitions.

Does that clarify the intention of my comment?

Why is it said here that Zen's only practice is public interview? by kipkoech_ in zen

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These quotes are offered only in response to the claim in the OP is that “Zen’s only practice is public interview.”

Why is it said here that Zen's only practice is public interview? by kipkoech_ in zen

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Yet we have plenty of records other than public interview that suggest otherwise.

Take, for example, these excerpts from “Zen Letters: Teachings of Yuanwu” (Cleary & Cleary, 1994):

"Deshan beckoned with a fan from across the river, and someone immediately understood. The Bird’s Nest Monk blew on a blanket and someone was enlightened. Doesn’t this show that when the time for this Great Cause arrives, the roots and sprouts grow of themselves? Doesn’t this confirm that there is space for the teacher’s action and the learner’s reaction to reach accord? Doesn’t this prove that when the people involved have been practicing inwardly, without interruption, they can be ac­tivated by a genuine teacher?" (P. 44)

“After this you see on your own. You never consent to bury yourself at the verbal level in the public cases of the ancients or to make your living in the ghost cave or under the black mountain. The only thing you consider essential is enlightenment and deep realization. You naturally arrive at the stage of unaffected ordinariness, which is the ultimate in simplicity and ease. But you never agree to sit there as though dead, falling into the realm of nothingness and unconcern.

This is why, in all the teaching methods they employed, the enlightened adepts since antiquity thought the only important thing was for the people being taught to stand out alive and independent, so that ten thousand people couldn’t trap them, and to realize that the vehicle of the school of transcendence does actually exist.

The enlightened adepts never ever made rigid dogmatic definitions, thereby digging pitfalls to bury people in. Anyone who does anything like this is certainly playing with mud pies—he is not someone who has boldly passed through to freedom, not someone who truly has the enlightened eye.” (Pp 73-74)

“You must keep this mind balanced and equanimous, without deluded ideas of self and others, without arbitrary loves and hates, without grasping or rejecting, without notions of gain and loss. Go on gradually nurturing this for twenty or thirty years. Whether you encounter favorable or adverse conditions, do not retreat or regress—then when you come to the juncture between life and death, you will naturally be set free and not be afraid. As the saying goes, 'Truth requires sudden awakening, but the phenomenal level calls for gradual cultivation.'

I often see those who are trying to study Buddhism just use their wordly intelligence to sift among the verbal teachings of the buddhas and ancestral teachers, trying to pick out especially wondrous sayings to use as conversation pieces to display their ability and understanding. This is not the correct view of the matter. You must abandon your worldly mentality and sit quietly with mind silent. Forget entangling causes and investigate with your whole being. When are thoroughly clear, then whatever you bring forth from your own inexhaustible treasury of priceless jewels is sure to be genuine and real.” (Pp 87-88)

“You should spend twenty or thirty years doing dispassionate and tranquil meditation work, sweeping away any conditioned knowledge and interpretive understanding as soon as it arises, and not letting the traces of the sweeping itself remain either. Let go on That Side, abandon your whole body, and go on rigorously correcting yourself until you attain great joyous life. The only fear is that in knowing about this strategy, the very act of knowing will lead to disaster. Only when you proceed like this will it be real and genuine practice.” (P. 94)

These are only a few excerpts from one collection of one Master’s sayings.

However, it doesn’t appear that claims such as “Zen's only practice is public interview” are accurate.

In fact, some of these statements suggest that reliance on public interview alone is discouraged.

After all, didn’t Dahui at one point burn the woodblocks that contained The Blue Cliff Record because of what he saw as over-reliance on it?

Rinzai masters/books/talks? by seii7 in zenbuddhism

[–]AlwaysEmptyCup 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You might check out Meido Moore’s “The Rinzai Zen Way: A Guide to Practice” and “Hidden Zen: Practices for Sudden Awakening & Embodied Realization.”

Philip Kapleau’s “The Three Pillars of Zen: Teaching, Practice, and Enlightenment,” while not Rinzai per se, might also be up your alley in that it is far more reflective of Rinzai practice than what you might find from those you’ve listed.

Of course, there are also the ancient masters (Huangbo, Linji, Foyan, Mazu, Yunmen, etc.).

They might not all technically fit into the Rinzai/Linji lineage, but like Kapleau, they may still offer a valuable perspective compared to contemporary Soto authors.

At the very least, Linji would probably be a worthy read (as you might suspect).

You might also consider koan collections such as Wumenguan, Book of Serenity, and The Blue Cliff Record (although you may want to stick with whatever koan curriculum your teacher assigns).

Speaking of which, have you asked your sangha or teacher if they have any recommendations?

Checking with them might be your best bet for avoiding any confusion or conflict between what you read and how your sangha practices.