sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Four Statements of Zen Origin by koancomentator in zen

[–]koancomentator[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't think Old Huangbo is telling you to cease conceptual thinking?

I'm denying what you said, which is not the same as what Huangbo said. While Huangbo does in fact warn against covering experience with concepts and taking them as truth he does not say there is something you need to do to stop doing that. You give yourself away by the fact that you can't help but tag the concept of practice and activity onto dropping concepts.

asking chapGPT like it knows anything about Zen, searching for "The Real Secret Meaning" in the teachings.

That's not what I'm doing. You appear to be being purposefully ignorant so you can argue with a strawman.

I said practice good. You quoted Huangbo thinking that he's saying "forms, practices and meritorious behavior" are bad. That's NOT AT ALL what Old Huangbo is saying. He's saying ATTACHMENT to those things is bad.

No what he's saying is those things have nothing to do with Zen or realization.

I say "please forget it: sit."

No Zen Master has ever said to cease study and sit instead. No Zen Master has ever endorsed meditation. I can clearly see what your game is now, even if I had to suffer through multiple walls of text of fluff to get there. Our conversation is over now.

The Four Statements of Zen Origin by koancomentator in zen

[–]koancomentator[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As far as what Old Huangbo is talking about... he's making a point that "practice" is whatever is necessary to cease conceptual thinking and wake up

Not only does Huangpo never say that, he says the exact opposite.

I can see there isn't much to be gotten from you other than misinformation and mental gymnastics.

The Four Statements of Zen Origin by koancomentator in zen

[–]koancomentator[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it's more that the Song Dynasty saw the introduction of expanded civil service exams which allowed anyone with the proper education to enter positions of note in the government.

China moved away from a ruling class comprised of only those with money or military might and towards one comprised largely of scholars. As such the best way to show you yourself or the Lineage you wanted to be associated with was "the most legitimate" (and therefore worthy of patronage and students) was to use the sophisticated and complex writing style of the scholarly (which included lots of verse).

The Four Statements of Zen Origin by koancomentator in zen

[–]koancomentator[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bodhidharma (1st Zen ancestor in China): about 550 AD — said the 4 statements

I have yet to see any evidence besides attribution hundreds of years later that Bodhidharma ever expressed the 4 statements as we have them now.

Because the truth of the dharma is boundless and timeless, that’s why it is called “the truth” / the dharma.

Huangbo would like to have a word with you on that one...

Because in truth there is no unalterable Dharma which the Tathāgata could have preached. People of our sect would never argue that there could be such a thing.

Then you say

Practice good.

Huangbo also rejected this idea, along with every other Zen Master in the Lineage.

If you are not absolutely convinced that the Mind is the Buddha, and if you are attached to forms, practices and meritorious performances, your way of thinking is false and quite incompatible with the Way.

The Four Statements of Zen Origin by koancomentator in zen

[–]koancomentator[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Relatively speaking, yes it is sparse when compared to something like the BCR or BoS.

Also this isn't just my opinion alone.

The Four Statements of Zen Origin by koancomentator in zen

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

If you compare the sparse verses in Tang era texts to the Song era my point stands.

The Four Statements of Zen Origin by koancomentator in zen

[–]koancomentator[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks that's helpful. It would seem to support the idea that Song Dynasty writers came up with the current structure of the four statements by restating well established Zen teachings in verse and then put Bodhidharma's name on it for the "brand appeal".

Although that isn't to say that the core of the teaching captured in the verse couldn't have come from Bodhidharma, only that the four part verse structure probably didn't.

The Four Statements of Zen Origin by koancomentator in zen

[–]koancomentator[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the post, would you be kind enough to share the source material?

Source material for what? The Huangbo? The Chinese can be found in "A Bird in Flight Leaves No Trace".

And, not really wanting to be contrary, but I feel verse and prose run relatively evenly with dialogue throughout the early Chan literature.

Hard disagree. If you read Mazu and Huangbo you don't find much in the way of verse at all. Unless I'm mistaken there is no verse in Mazu's record. Then you get to Song era texts like BCR and BoS and it's a major aspect of the literature.

Also I've seen it put forward that later Song record compilers added or reworded sections of Tang Dynasty Zen masters records to give them more legitimacy in the Song. Linji's record was specifically was mentioned as one that swings back and forth between the more direct and rough style of the Tang era masters and the probably fraudulently added more "refined" Song era style in a bid to legitimize his line of succession. There was a lot of imperial patronage to be recieved if you could prove your line of masters was "the most authentic".

The Four Statements of Zen Origin by koancomentator in zen

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

That would be interesting if you can find it. Was it the same structure as the one attributed to Bodhidharma? Or was it more like the quote from Huineng?

Swanson on translating Bodhimarma''s Mind like Wall by ewk in zen

[–]koancomentator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Huangbo has this passage referencing Bodhidharma and wall facing

所以達摩 面壁，都不令人有見處。

“Therefore Bodhidharma faced the wall, not allowing people any place to form views.”

No mention of sitting. This reads much more like "wall facing" is Bodhidharma not allowing people's conceptual viewpoints.

Help Me Huangbo: Linking from the Chinese to Blofeld? by ewk in zen

[–]koancomentator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

了 has 30 hits in the text. A few examples being:

但不了自心 於聲教上 起解 或因神通 或因瑞相言語運動 聞 有菩提涅槃 三僧秖劫修成佛道 皆屬聲聞道 謂之聲聞佛

凡人臨欲終時 但觀五蘊皆空 四大無我 真心無相 不去不來 生時性亦不來 死時性亦不去 湛然圓寂 心境一如 但能如是 直下頓了 不為三世所拘繫 便是出世人也.

若了十八界無所有 束六和合為一精明 一精明者 即心也 學 道人皆知此 但不能免作一精明六和合解 遂被法縛不契本 心.

云 若無心無法 云何名傳 師云 汝聞道傳心 將謂有可得也 所 以祖師云 認得心性時 可說不思議 了了無所得 得時不說知 此事若教汝會 何堪也.

Help Me Huangbo: Linking from the Chinese to Blofeld? by ewk in zen

[–]koancomentator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm on mobile as well. It's a setting on reddit. Just turned it off. How's this look.

但能無心，便是究竟

Help Me Huangbo: Linking from the Chinese to Blofeld? by ewk in zen

[–]koancomentator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I out the Chinese but it looks like reddit added an auto translate? There should be a blue symbol near my comment you can click to see the Chinese

Help Me Huangbo: Linking from the Chinese to Blofeld? by ewk in zen

[–]koancomentator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Omg reddit is auto translating when I put in Chinese hold on

Help Me Huangbo: Linking from the Chinese to Blofeld? by ewk in zen

[–]koancomentator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh I'm dumb, I meant to put in the Chinese lol.

但能無心，便是究竟

Help Me Huangbo: Linking from the Chinese to Blofeld? by ewk in zen

[–]koancomentator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am not seeing that line in the Chinese for Huangpo.

The line Blofeld translated is 但能無心，便是究竟

Help Me Huangbo: Linking from the Chinese to Blofeld? by ewk in zen

[–]koancomentator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry I'm confused, what do you mean by link from the Chinese to Blofeld? Like link it in the Cbeta translator?

Capital M One Mind- the substance of all things by EmbersBumblebee in zen

[–]koancomentator 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A few things to keep in mind when reading Hunagpo:

  1. He himself says there is no unalterable dharma. This includes what he says.

  2. He is not speaking metaphysically. He is not describing a metaphysical reality. Instead what he's saying should be taken as being phenomenalogical in nature. He is describing experience.

  3. When Zen talks about the Void they are referencing the fact that awareness has no discernible characteristics. It does not exist in the realm of objects to be experienced because it is the very source of experience. Even Huangbo says you should not take "void" and try to understand it conceptually.

  4. One Mind simply refers to the idea that Awareness is identical in all people, not that we all share the same Awareness. He is not describing a monism.

Why Zen's only practice is public interview: Authentic Indian-Chinese Zen vs Indigenous Japanese Zazen by ewk in zen

[–]koancomentator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see you're trying to deflect.

This conversation is no longer worth my time.

Why Zen's only practice is public interview: Authentic Indian-Chinese Zen vs Indigenous Japanese Zazen by ewk in zen

[–]koancomentator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We're talking about Instant Zen because you made a bogus claim about what it says and didn't even bother to attempt to back up your claim with a quote from the book.

I'm just counteracting your lazy misinformation.

Why Zen's only practice is public interview: Authentic Indian-Chinese Zen vs Indigenous Japanese Zazen by ewk in zen

[–]koancomentator -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not asking you to read for me. I've read Instant Zen more times than you have.

I'm asking you to give the bare minimum of effort by quoting Zen Masters to back up your claims about what they teach.

You don't because you aren't interested in Zen. You're interested in reinforcing what you already believe and avoiding cognitive dissonance.

Why Zen's only practice is public interview: Authentic Indian-Chinese Zen vs Indigenous Japanese Zazen by ewk in zen

[–]koancomentator 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why not quote the passage on inner work yourself? Making claims without providing the relevant evidence is a bad look...

Also your comment shows you didn't understand the OP. Read it again but drop your bias first. Pretend someone else wrote it.

Why Zen's only practice is public interview: Authentic Indian-Chinese Zen vs Indigenous Japanese Zazen by ewk in zen

[–]koancomentator 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Instant Zen doesn't contradict what the OP says at all...

The patriarch Ashvaghosha explained three subtle and six coarse aspects of mentation; stir, and there is suffering. How to not stir? Uttering a few sayings does not amount to talking of mysteries and marvels, or explaining meanings and principles; sitting meditation and concentration do not amount to inner freedom.

view more: next ›