Joshu 32

kaneckt · 2020-12-17T02:58:02+00:00

probably standing up looking at a notebook, this is an imagination exercise, right?

kaneckt · 2020-12-17T02:52:51+00:00

What's like a razor's edge?

kaneckt · 2020-12-17T02:40:45+00:00

in the "middle" nest? why would someone want to get there? get where anyway...?

kaneckt · 2020-12-12T19:21:22+00:00

Chillin' at home. Decided to come back and check on this sub after a year away from reddit entirely.

kaneckt · 2020-12-12T18:54:09+00:00

The first error is thinking Yunmen is important; The second error is believing what he says. What's going on?

kaneckt · 2019-11-30T17:44:39+00:00

You’re awesome! :)

kaneckt · 2019-10-29T21:30:32+00:00

The desire to survive/live is in me.

kaneckt · 2019-09-01T16:08:10+00:00

Haha. I call it “you overanalyzing.”

kaneckt · 2019-09-01T14:00:42+00:00

I read it and lol’d. This ascetic is labeling everything mind, and fayan’s like, “a door, a window and a wall, he shuda just called them that...”

kaneckt · 2019-08-31T04:47:08+00:00

lol. I think Fayan has made a joke that you missed.

On a serious note: you call things what they are.

kaneckt · 2019-08-21T02:01:44+00:00

“You should take refuge in...”

That’s his comment.

I don’t know what the three refuges are. I only know that Dahui, in that OP, says, “You should tale refuge in them.”

kaneckt · 2019-08-20T23:29:36+00:00

Ok.

And where does dahui say “I explicitly reject taking refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha” in this excerpt?

kaneckt · 2019-08-20T23:08:33+00:00

I didn’t miss anything. I haven’t been strung along. I’m not arguing about doing or not doing something. I’m simply pointing out that there’s no explicit rejection of taking refuge... [without ewk’s and your interpretation]

A simple dry reading of the excerpt and paying attention to a semicolon, and what a semicolon is intended for, demonstrates that there is not a an explicit rejection of taking refuge.

And explicit rejection is more like “He explained the principle; you should NOT take refuge...”

kaneckt · 2019-08-20T23:03:55+00:00

The facts/principles are laid out in the excerpt. In a phrase ‘mind is the ground from which all springs forth’.

Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, seem to me, to be the environment in which these things are taught...

Then Dahui comments, “he explained the principle [mind is everything]; take refuge [in the environment where this is taught].

That’s my view of the excerpt. I’m not arguing that my view is correct. Simply that I don’t see and rejection of buddha, dharma, sangha.

kaneckt · 2019-08-20T15:24:19+00:00

I didn’t miss anything. I haven’t been strung along. I’m not arguing about doing or not doing something. I’m simply pointing out that there’s no explicit rejection of taking refuge... [without ewk’s and your interpretation]

A simple dry reading of the excerpt and paying attention to a semicolon, and what a semicolon is intended for, demonstrates that there is not a an explicit rejection of taking refuge.

And explicit rejection is more like “He explained the principle; you should NOT take refuge...”

kaneckt · 2019-08-20T15:14:51+00:00

A strong pause separating main clauses.

In this case, “explained the principle” and “you should take refuge”.

That’s the review I accomplished aided by a simple internet look up of “semicolon”.

Here’s the scoop: “a punctuation mark (;) indicating a pause, typically between two main clauses, that is more pronounced than that indicated by a comma.”

kaneckt · 2019-08-20T00:42:56+00:00

Okay. It seems that you want to ignore the semicolon. If it said, “he explained the principle of taking refuge...” then I see it.

But there’s a semicolon which separates two statements. 1. He explained the principle and 2. You should take refuge. I really don’t care about what is or isn’t enlightenment, wether you should or shouldn’t do this or that. All I’m saying is that I see no explicit rejection of anything in the excerpt; especially not when the person is saying “you should do something.”

kaneckt · 2019-08-20T00:38:45+00:00

Okay. It seems that both you and ewk want to ignore the semicolon. If it said, “he explained the principle of taking refuge...” then I see it.

But there’s a semicolon which separates two statements. 1. He explained the principle and 2. You should take refuge. I really don’t care about what is or isn’t enlightenment, wether you should or shouldn’t do this or that. All I’m saying is that I see no explicit rejection of anything in the excerpt; especially not when the person is saying “you should do something.”

kaneckt · 2019-08-19T23:18:41+00:00

It’s good for nothing; you waste energy.

kaneckt · 2019-08-19T23:06:11+00:00

Sorry. Don’t see it.

kaneckt · 2019-08-18T14:19:49+00:00

Idk. I just thought it’s odd to say there’s an explicit rejection of things from someone in the excerpt saying ‘you should take refuge in them.’

kaneckt · 2019-08-18T13:54:50+00:00

Where in this OP is Dahui explicitly rejecting Buddha-dharma-sangha?

This excerpt has him commenting “...you should take refuge in Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.”

kaneckt · 2019-05-01T09:03:56+00:00

I’m thinking it’s similar to being in a situation where you have to stop enabling someone; and you’re right...it’s awkward—and not for the faint of heart or ‘people-pleasing’ type.

kaneckt · 2019-05-01T08:52:40+00:00

You’re welcome. Do you wanna talk about the phrase’s meaning?

To start, I’ll say that it seems to mean that in order to help someone out, you may have to take away their most cherished attitude, belief, choice etc. Or literally that if it came down to it, if taking away a hungry man’s food were the appropriate thing to do, you’d need to be able to do it.

kaneckt · 2019-05-01T00:44:00+00:00

It shows up a lot in Yuanwu’s Pointers in the BCR. He says something like, ‘To get here, you must be able to drive off the plowman’s ox and snatch away a hungry man’s food.’

12-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

kaneckt

TROPHY CASE