The Case

Whenever Deshan saw a monk coming through the gate, he would beat them with a stick.

Miaozong's Instructional Verse

Killing and giving life proceed together.

Sweet nectar, poisonous medicine.*

Is it a gift or a punishment?

That's entirely down to judgment.

舉德山凡見僧入門便棒。

殺活並行

醍醐毒藥

是賞是罰

一任卜度

/* What both Beata Grant and I are translating as 'nectar' is more precisely one of several refined dairy products, associated in some cultures with purity. This character pair appears several times throughout the zen record and many translators go with 'ghee' (i.e. clarified butter) - but I feel in this case more contextually cognate with 'sweet nectar' for the implication of pleasure.

Common Misunderstandings

1. "Deshan's beatings are a 'teaching method' intended to 'provoke enlightenment'" - there is no evidence for this in the zen record. instead, over the course of centuries zen masters repeatedly say that enlightenment is your own affair and is not brought about by the actions of another.

2. "The 'Dharma Nectar' (good) can be understood separately from the poison (bad)" - this is the interpretation of people who want to believe that 'whatever feels good is the truth,' the dependable ally of those who seek the safety and comfort of zombie life.

3. "When I understand zen I will be able to explain the purpose of Deshan's beatings." - Not true. They say: you will know, but only for yourself. That is what Miaozong means by 'down to judgment.'

Conclusion: You have to judge Deshan for yourself. That's NOT the same as 'it's a matter of opinion' - if your judgment is correct it's correct. But you won't be able to get the correct answer from someone else, nor share it with someone else. You can't just make an answer up and pretend to believe in it either. You'll know deep down you're not serious, you're just trying to get to 'whatever feels good is true' with extra steps (penitence).

Here is a link to the previous iteration of this thread.

#Status of Group Projects

1. Miaozong's Instruction, Part 1

We are up to 29. Ewk has his hands on this.

2. Xutang's Empty Hall Part 1

I am continuing to validate Xutang's Empty Hall translations with Chat GPT. I've produced 3 Chat GPT translations of each case and now I'm at the stage where I am comparing Chat GPT translations with /r/Zen translations. If I can spend a few hours each week with it, I will probably be done by the end of the month.

3. Wiki Maintenance

I'm going to begin consolidating pages together. Could someone assist?

4. Zen Primary Sources

The next step is to add the texts belonging to the "Instructions in Verse" category. Could someone assist?

5. I added content to https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/wiki/untranslated. What texts should we add to this page?

6. I've been talking with people who are guests on the /r/Zen Post of the Week Podcast about getting together once-a-month for a roundtable episode. It could be about a case, it could be about an /r/Zen post, who knows. It was discussed that we could go with either YouTube Live or Twitch so we can have live (not entirely with YouTube Live) engagement from viewers in the form of comments. Twitch seems to be the favorite for the purposes of other long-term projects ewk has been thinking about. This is a call for volunteers to moderate the chat and an invitation for participants. It would cost about $14 a month for Zoom Pro.

Status of Individual Projects

1. I am working on a translation of Qingzhou's One Hundred Questions with Wansong's relative answering and Linquan commenting in verse. My schedule is too busy to work on this at the moment. Maybe in 2025 after Xutang is taken care of.

2. I am working on annotating Dufficy's translation of The Illusory Man. I got ahold of Lauer's book on Mingben and didn't come across anything new from Mingben in it. I have begun re-translating The Illusory Man in its entirety.

3. ewk is:

4. Working on his own translation of the Gateless Checkpoint.

5. Creating a hard-copy of Qingliao's Faith in Mind commentary and Tongxuan's 100 Questions.

6. Writing an article for academia.edu on the historicity of Zen records and the contextual authority of Zen Masters in Zen.

Comment with any projects you know of to get them added to the next update thread.

“Ching Ch’ing asked a monk, “What is that sound outside the gate?” The monk said, “The sound of raindrops.”

Ch’ing said, “Sentient beings are inverted. They lose themselves and follow after things.”

The monk said, “What about you, Teacher?”

Ch’ing said, “I almost don’t lose myself.”

The monk said, “What is the meaning of ‘I almost don’t lose myself.’”

Ch’ing said, “Though it still should be easy to express oneself, to say the whole thing has to be difficult.”

°•|:○

If I read in the koan a q u e s t i o n, one of the first things I want to understand is what prompted question.

Consider the concept of rain in this context. While rain is essential for all life on Earth, it is often viewed negatively in our metaphorical thinking, associated with gloom and hopelessness. Instead of exploring the depths of our valuable human experience, we frequently find ourselves searching for alternatives or escape routes, overlooking the present moment where our lives unfold. When our minds are unburdened, we open ourselves to experiences, allowing emotions and connections to flow freely. The barriers between ourselves and our experiences, as well as between us and others, fade away, enabling genuine intimacy and compassion.

Human often believe that achieving happiness requires the right college, job, partner, children, car, house, diet, exercise routine, or self-help book—or perhaps just the next drink or high. However, none of these pursuits provide lasting satisfaction. As comedian George Carlin pointed out, ' ' trying to find happiness through material possessions is as ineffectual as trying to satisfy hunger by taping sandwiches to our bodies. ' ' This endless pursuit leads us to lose ourselves, chasing one desire after another, depleting our lives, exploiting each other, and harming our planet in the process.

Even Zen practice often begins with materialistic intentions. Many of us approach it as another self-improvement method, hoping meditation will make us calmer, more focused, or kinder. We might seek profound spiritual experiences or enlightenment, which is natural and nothing to be ashamed of. However, to truly grow in this practice, we must eventually move beyond this mindset of seeking gain. If we don’t, we may realize that the blissful moments we experience during meditation are transient. We might feel enlightened until we face everyday frustrations, like being cut off in traffic or dealing with our partners’ habits.

This cycle of disappointment is inevitable. If we view our unpredictable human nature as something to escape rather than the foundation of our awakening, we set ourselves up for disappointment. Worse yet, we might mistakenly believe we have transcended our humanity, using this false sense of enlightenment to elevate ourselves above others, which only reinforces our sense of a separate identity.

This is why the final part of this koan is crucial. When the monk asks Ch’ing, “What about you, teacher?” he is really asking about his own potential for enlightenment. He wonders if he is destined to spend his life chasing after desires and when he will finally reach a deeper understanding. Ch’ing’s response emphasizes that we don’t practice to become Buddhas or to escape our humanity; rather, our practice reflects our inherent Buddha Nature.

In Soto Zen, the concept of continuous practice is fundamental. Dogen taught throughout his life that practice and awakening are interconnected. There is no definitive conclusion in Zen, nor is there a magical solution to our human struggles. Instead, we commit ourselves to ongoing practice, seeking awakening within our human vulnerabilities. Although this may seem straightforward, Ch’ing’s concluding remark reminds us that the journey can be challenging. Life is inherently difficult, and sometimes it rains.

However, if we dedicate ourselves to this endless practice, we can embrace the simplicity of existence, as the 20th-century poet and monk Santoka expressed: “Just as it is. It rains. I get wet. I walk.”

🪷

#Post(s) in Question

Link to post: https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/comments/1f3mbn5/bodhidharma_helps_everybody_out/

Link to episode: https://sites.libsyn.com/407831/9-6-2024-gatelesss-case-41-bodhidharmas-mind-pacification

Link to all episodes: https://sites.libsyn.com/407831

Buymeacoffee, so I'm not accused of going it alone:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/ewkrzen

#What did we end up talking about?

Mostly the translation... but we missed questions about the verse.

Forty-one: Bodhidharma Pacifies the Mind

Bodhidharma [stood] facing the wall. The Second Patriarch stands in the snow, cuts off his arm, and says, "My mind is not at peace. I beg the master to pacify my mind." Bodhidharma says, "Bring me your mind, and I will pacify it for you." The Patriarch says, "I searched for my mind, but I cannot obtain it." Bodhidharma says, "I have pacified your mind for you."

Wumen says:

The toothless old barbarian crossed the sea, coming tens of thousands of miles. One could say he raised waves where there was no wind. In the end, he received a single disciple, and yet that disciple was missing [the complete set of] his six faculties1. Yi Xie Sanlang does not recognize four characters. BLYTH BLYTH BLYTH

The verse says:

Coming from the West, directly pointing, The situation emerged because of a reliance on entrusted words. The noise disturbed the forest of monks (all monks everywhere), To arrive is thus.

#You can be on the podcast! Use a pseudonym! Nobody cares!

Add a comment if there is a post you want somebody to get interviewed about, or you agree to be interviewed. We are now using libsyn, so you don't even have to show your face. You just get a link to an audio call.

”Every day at the midday meal, Master Jinniu personally manned the rice bucket and standing before the Sangha Hall broke into a dance. Whooping and laughing, he would say, “Little bodhisattvas! Come and eat the rice!”

(Xuedou said, “Although he acted this way, Jinniu was not good-hearted.”)

A monk asked Changqing, “The man of old taught, ‘Little bodhisattvas! Come and eat the rice!’ What did he mean?”

Changqing said, “It really seems. he was extolling each meal as an occasion for joy"

• |: °

Happiness is a term seldom used by the Zen Masters of the past, and it is notably absent from the koans in The Blue Cliff Record. This may be because the teachings often emphasize detachment over joy as the ideal mental state. As Yuanwu stated, “Those who have attained Zen remain free, desireless, and independent at all times.” From this perspective, happiness is seen as equally unhelpful as misery, as both represent extremes of the same worldly duality; pursuing one inevitably leads to the other. Consequently, the ancient sages adopted a rather austere demeanor, and even their unusual actions were rarely accompanied by smiles. When they did laugh, it was often at the folly of others. This creates a rather arid atmosphere, but in the 74th Case, Master Jinniu brings a refreshing change, akin to a spring rain. He is one of the more enigmatic figures in The Record, with little known about him aside from his role as abbot of a temple in Zhenzhou during the late eighth century and his status as a disciple of Great Master Ma. The only remaining account of his life or teachings is the story of his playful antics in front of the monk’s hall during mealtime. Yet, this story is rich with the joy that comes from uplifting others. Whatever Jinniu was offering in that pot of rice, I would gladly partake. His evident joy lends significant weight to Xuedou’s remark: “Although he acted this way, Jinniu was not good-hearted.” Even after multiple readings, I find this statement to be profoundly impactful and somewhat detached. Old Master Jinniu behaved like a kind-hearted individual and spoke as one too. Did he possess the mindset of a good-hearted person? Xuedou asserts “no,” but possible he is ultimately suggesting that it is irrelevant?

Being vague, nonsequel, and impersonal are strategies that I think intend to hide what a someone’s like, because they don’t like their ideas about themselves or they want to put a beautiful facade forward. And man, it can be a mix of this. Recalling from past lives here.

What does this have to do with zen?

• If who you want to show is listening and answering, who you are isn’t nil-immediately or largely addressed. VS see your nature.

• The uncompromise to discuss facts and arguments can’t immediately learn about topics like zen in the zen forum. VS reading a book about the name of the place the books discussed.

Not only immediately but considerations are sliding scales to nil.

So then all of that is very wasteful or the nil-immediate and drives the confusion of any sort of gradual learning for very simple themes for example that 1+1=2.

I get to see this from new agers who I think want to put their best foot forward and sweep away everything they don’t like or is “unskillful” a lot. When really it’s a personal decision that I’ve never seen anybody ever EXCLUSIVELY link to zen.

What could being wrong and assumy and reckless ever do?

If it’s my thing for a time, It does my thing and It’s yet another opportunity to expose truth, a prerequisite to learning any subject, lest it be that we resort to discussing the prerequisites of zen in the zen forum.

I think Dongshan reminds of basic ABC prerequisites learning this in the “capable of” case.

Stuff everyone did all the time as little infants, but later perhaps some people even disagree with today.

If you can’t agree that there are prerequisites to learning, I think it’s likely to end up looking gradual to some people who for example are looking at someone learning 1+1. I call these people new agers.

To find a basic introduction to Xuefeng Huikong and another set of talks he gave, you can go to this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/s/xvhVyW8h7r

In this translation, I did something a little different—rather than translate directly, I paraphrased a number of the more technical terms, transforming them into English phrases I believe even someone who has not studied Zen a long time would be able to understand clearly. This means that if you understand some of the nuance of these ideas, gained over long exposure with the Zen works available to English speakers, and especially if you've worked with the original Chinese before, some of that nuance has been lost. In it's stead, I hope I've created a work that is most accessible to anyone interested in Zen.

I've also strung together a number of informal talks given by Xuefeng from throughout his works as if they were one long talk. This is an artistic choice on my part—it gives many ideas Xuefeng expressed a chance to breath, and be accessed as one work, rather than as a handful of seemingly disconnected ideas and admonitions.

It is my belief that these changes make little negative impact on the Xuefeng's ability to convey his thoughts and style to more seasoned readers, while greatly increasing the accessibility of those less experienced in Zen study. For advanced students, and the curious, the original Chinese is included below.

...

Xuefeng Gives a Talk at the Request of a Sick Monk

"One of the sick monks requested this meeting—we'll begin by joining together and saying farewell to Zen Master Huguo:

Laughable, lamentable,
Pitiful, and heartening—
Teeth on a wooden plank grows hair,
A monkey lose its tail.

Anywhere you go on this vast earth, finding someone who can speak on this matter is difficult. Do not say you understand Zen; in these eight provinces, only old Master Huguo does. Few can compare.

Me, I'm a useless hill-monk who wandered through the distant mountains of Ou with knit eyebrows. Even back then, already I'd fallen behind. Now, along the backbone of Mt. Dan, my nostrils are pressed together, and again I lag behind. When have I ever taken a single step? Despite being a hill-monk who's exhausted all his strength, I still can't catch up. So, where exactly is the sickness?

My original intention this morning was to ask the elder to point out this illness for everyone, but the Dharma seat has not been fully prepared. Moreover, this old man possesses the skill to erect the Five Phoenix Tower, and so it'd be best if we could stop him from settling anywhere else. I'm not like this Great Man of Zen—I speak whenever the opportunity arises, so, the other day I asked a fellow monk who was in my room, 'Do you still understand the Great Man?'

There are many who respond, but few who truly understand—the fundamental arrangement of reality has many paths, but Zen has even more pitfalls. Some try to grasp understanding by responding to words, appeasing themselves to Zen, seeking a shortcut through the hillside, like some who say, 'It's just understanding through rituals,' or who repeatedly claim, 'There is no understanding.' Or they practice the 'exalted Zen' and just move on. Such things are all sickness, not the true Dharma.

Tonight, this hill-monk will expound the Dharma, because the sick monk has requested it. I give it to you, pointing it out to each of you; the illness of Buddhas, of Patriarchs, of Mind, of Zen. Illnesses that are strange, natural, that come from another, or from isolation—these are compounded by the eight sufferings, the four-hundred and four diseases, and the 84,000 afflictions of worldly dust and troubles."

Then, striking the staff once, he said, "Right here, right now, everything shatters into pieces. All ailments are eliminated, and there is nothing blocking joy. Now, tell me, which of these is the Dharma? If no one can speak to the heart of the matter, than this is not it—I shall return to the Great Man once more.

Hundreds of rivers, flowing in different channels,
All return to the sea—
Ten thousand meanings, though divided,
Assemble into one reality.

This is why the monks wandering in from all directions gather at Xueshan for the summer. Among them, some study the profound meaning, but all take up Great and Perfect Enlightenment and, here in my temple, where the body and mind dwell in peace, they are free from disturbances or distractions."

Then he shouted and said, "Tell me now, is this a shout used as a shout, or is it not used as a shout? Is it probing with a stick in the grass, or is it the Vajra King's jeweled sword? Is it the lion crouching on the ground? Those who have not fully seen past the gate should not say they are finished with doubt."

After finishing a few more remarks, he said, "In ancient times, it was said, 'For those who have not yet fully penetrated, investigating the meaning is better than investigating the words. But for those who have fully penetrated, grasping the meaning is not as good as grasping the words.' This is how the ancients were. What this means right now is that even where there is no freedom of spirit, one still has their own freedom of spirit.

You young men who dwell here, who enter the crowd to participate in Zen, you must pay attention, instead of trying to escape into the idea that everything is empty of intrinsic meaning or nature. First, you must attain enlightenment. Once enlightened, you must practice. Once you practice, you must penetrate all the way through, and only after thorough completion can you truly resemble a Zen monk, without anything superfluous.

I'm just a useless hill-monk, full of ugliness, and endlessly inept, with a clumsy tongue and nothing novel to say. I have no flowery phrases or elegant prose to offer my brothers—nothing for you to savor. All I have is a single sharp spiritual sword. Anyone who comes forward does not need to accept even a single cut. So how can one enter Xuefeng’s gate?"

There he shouted and said, "Two hundred years ago, Zen Master Fengxue presented a challenge to an assembly of those seeking Buddhahood. To this day, no one has been able to answer it. Among this group, all of you are outstanding individuals seeking Buddhahood—each aiming directly for the top.

Tonight, this hill-monk can not avoid digging through the garbage heap, pulling out something fresh and new to present to you all, to respond to your seeking and to test the eyes of those who are here to learn. When the opportunity arises, and the optimal moment of usefulness appears, you must grasp it directly, and not be confined to minor trivialities. Even if you manage to grasp the meaning before the words are spoken, you are still trapped in a shell of earthly delusions. Even a master of spinning phrases will still end up running headlong into the same paths one finds themselves on when they entertain wild and deranged points of view.

All of you have previously received lessons and explanations on the divergent nature of clarity and obscurity, but today, I will sweep it all away at once for you. Each of you must be like a lion's cub, roaring mightily on the sandy ground. Then a sheer cliff will rise a thousand feet before you—who dares to look directly at it? Anyone who tries will have their eyes blinded. This is what Zen Master Fengxue taught.

Now, is there any lion cub here who can roar on the sandy ground? Come forward and let out a roar. Have you not heard it said, 'To frighten the herd, one must go to where the herd is frightened. To bring forth something extraordinary, it must be drawn from someone extraordinary.'?

In all my life, the only real joy I've found was in this very moment—reflecting on what was worthwhile after the fact isn't particularly smart. Is it there? Does it exist? I suppose not. This old and waning hill-monk will muster what's left of his youthful vigor and give it to you."

Xuefeng immediately grabbed his abbot's staff, drew a line with it by slashing vertically, then held it up horizontally, shouting, "The old man Fengxue deserves thirty heavy blows! He's completely blind and should be cast into a mountain of iron! As for the rest—from Sakyamuni to the original Buddha—what are they but bowls tumbling down a hill?"

Then he threw down the staff, stepped down from his seat, and said, "Brothers, time easily slips away; moment by moment, thought by thought, hour by hour, day by day, until the ninety days of the summer retreat are used up. You younger lads should be using these ninety days to focus on the breath—in and out. How many times have you crossed the River Ganges?

Tomorrow, the summer retreat will be dismissed. Tonight, with the ringing of the bells and the beating of the drums, we gather for a short while. Whether you have attained realization or not, whether you are in accord with the Truth or not, today you are fortunate to receive the compassionate blessing of the Tathagata, the King of Emptiness, who declares, 'All are released, even the bearded beggars at the crossroads.'

As if I had found myself in an dream of intoxicating delirium, I performed two backflips, and cried out, again and again, 'Joy! Joy!'

A mud ox on a snowy peak emerges from the sea,
The nostrils of Mount Fang reach the distant sky—
Deng places the pork upon the table,
And Li sells the fish in the market.

When you speak of Zen, when you speak of the Way, the pleasant offerings of the followers of the King of Hell, with all His arrogance and contempt, will immediately seem dull to you. In the cold earth, He will grow furious, and a lump the size of a bushel will swell under His chin. This hill-monk, holding his staff, bursts into loud laughter and says, 'You bunch of wretched fools, don't indulge in empty joy or needless worry. You should know that in Jiangnan and Zhejiang, spring is cold and autumn is hot.' "

Then Xuefeng shouted, striked once with his staff, and stepped down. Seeing that he still had the rapt attention of his audience, he turned before leaving and said, "Tonight will be a meeting on the Surangama. Four younger fellows have been invited to this informal discussion. Fanning the fire with the wind is unavoidable since the summer ends in three days."

Then he left. Later, when those invited had assembled for the informal discussion, he continued, saying, "Brothers, the autumn is penetrating deep into the mountains, bringing us solitude. This hill-monk has now resolved to host and take charge of you younger brothers. Even this small effort seems insufficient; it might be better if each of you were given your own seat on Mt. Xuefeng.

Still, with so many people, and only one Xuefeng Mountain, how can everyone get their share? Do you understand? Simply be ready to recognize the Mind, and you'll manage to take complete control.

Younger brothers, today Xuefeng isn't what it used to be—if someone lacks strength, everyone needs to pitch in, or you'll soon see the kitchen cold and smokeless, the bell for the fish will go silent, and the abbot's seat will be empty. Although you might think this makes no difference, a man of character has the courage to do what is right. Everyone should do their part.

It's just that the coming and going of Zen monks is quite ordinary—it's of these that I ask, what's to be done about the sacred sites of the ancient sages? It's essential that someone tidies up. This is no small matter.

In the present season, you brothers are like ships caught by the wind—can it be that those who make their homes everywhere else in China are the one's who should take responsibility? Moreover, as guests under the gate of the ancestral masters, how can you people bear to sit idly by and remain indifferent? A true man is courageous in doing what is right. Everyone should step up.

It's the same as during the summer, when the mantra of the Surangama is chanted in the Great Buddha Hall; many mouths, one voice, roaring as one—no external marks of the Buddhas are visible, no Mind that dwells in effortless activity, yet the Buddhas respond at once, and the mantra is fully realized.

It is also like sawing through fire—the fire has no fixed place, but as long as you don't stop or slow down, the fire will manifest its effects before you. One must discern a fragment of the true Mind. Those who follow it will surge forward like water flowing downward, and the Way will be fulfilled. You brothers who chant, you have to step up. To saw through fire, you must apply effort. To find transformation in the base essence of reality, you must become resolute.

Now tell me, sitting on the lion's seat, facing everyone—what more do you need? If you brothers, standing here tonight, were to suddenly awaken all at once, this hill-monk would grind some ink so he could write it all down for you."

Then Xuefeng picked up his staff, struck it once, and said, "The grand pavilion of Vairocana is opened wide. Whether you have been studying for a long time or are just a beginner, all are invited to enter. Once one enters, all is entered. Once one understands, all is understood. Then, one can sit and cut everything off from atop Vairocana’s head, without needing an inheritance from Sakyamuni. At just that tome, Maitreya will withdraw his body from the path.

Xuefeng opens his mouth to eat where he is. Why? Because such a person verifies strictly by the facts, enters strictly by the facts, understands clearly by the facts, and sees by the facts alone. There's no use for "Mind is Buddha" or "No Mind, No Buddha." The Five Ranks and the Three Paths are useless, and so are Deshan's stick and Linji's shout. Any words to be spoken are all useless.

Because there's no use in it, there's nothing more to be said. Tonight, Xuefeng rings the bell and beats the drum, gathering everyone; you can do naught but leave it at that and go."

[0245b08] 病僧請小參。兼謝護國禪師。堪笑堪嗟。可悲可喜。板齒生毛。猢猻沒尾。盡大地如許廣濶。覔箇舉話底人。也難得。莫道會禪。今者八州管內。只有護國老。較些子。山僧頃年。甌阜疎山。眉毛相結。是時已輸其先。而今象骨丹山。鼻孔相拄。又落其後。是伊何曾動著一步。山僧用盡氣力。終趕不上。你諸人且道。病在甚麼處。今晨本擬請此老。為諸人點出這病痛。盖為法座粧嚴未畢。況此老是架五鳳樓手段。別處頓放他不得。不比雪峯上大人禪。到處裏得說便說。所以前日室中問兄弟。你還會上大人麼。祗對者甚多。悟明者極少。理既多途。禪尤多病。有般隨語生解阿師。便道丘乙己。或道可知禮也。或一向道不會。或一向高禪將去。如此之類。皆病非法。山僧今夜。因病僧請說法。與汝諸人。一一拈出。佛病祖病。心病禪病。奇特病。平實病。依他病。獨脫病八苦交煎。四百四病。八萬四千塵勞煩惱之病。乃卓主丈一下云。向這裏一時百雜碎。諸病既除。不妨快活。且道那箇是法。而今莫有道得底麼。如無。還我上大人來。

[0242c12] 結夏小參。百川異流。同歸於海。萬區分義。總成乎實。所以十方雲水。共夏雪山。其間有已證未證。有義學玄學。莫不皆是以大圓覺。為我伽藍。身心安居。無雜無壤。乃喝一喝云。且道這一喝。是作一喝用。是不作一喝用。是探竿影草。是金剛王寶劒。是踞地師子。未具透關眼者。莫道不疑好。(敘辭畢)乃云。古者道。未徹底人。參句不如參意。既徹底人。得意不如得句。古人與麼。曲為今時。不風流處。亦自風流。汝輩後生家。入眾參禪。切在子細。不得掠虗。第一須得悟。既悟須要行。既行須要徹。既徹方且似箇衲僧。不為分外。山僧百醜千拙。口吻稚鈍。別無新鮮語句。攢花簇錦。四六八六。與諸兄弟咂啖。只是一口靈鋒寶劒。但有來者。不消一刜。且作麼生。入得雪峯門。喝一喝。下座。

[0244c06] 小參。二百年前。風穴和尚。於選佛場中。曾立箇策問。至今未有人答得。我此一眾。盡是選佛底俊流。一操直取狀元。山僧今夜。不免向糞掃堆頭。斬新拈出。與汝諸人答看參學眼目。臨機直須大用現前。勿自拘於小節。設使言前薦得。猶是滯殻迷封。縱然句下精通。未免觸途狂見。汝等諸人。應是從前學解。明昧兩岐。如今為汝。一時掃却。直須箇箇。如師子兒。吒沙地哮吼一聲。壁立千仞。誰敢正眼覷著。覷著即瞎却渠眼。此是風穴和尚與麼道。而今莫有吒沙地底師子兒麼。試出來哮吼一聲。不見道。驚羣之句。須向驚羣處。舉揚奇特之事。須向奇特人拈出。平生慶快只在如今。過後思賢。不為英俊。有麼有麼。如無。山僧老大衰颯。不免作少年調度。與你諸人。代筆去也。驀拈主丈。劃一劃。乃橫按。喝一喝云。風穴老漢合喫三十痛棒。[翟*欠]瞎貶向二銕圍山。自餘釋迦元和佛陀。是甚麼碗躂丘。擲主丈。下座。

[0245c22] 解夏小參。兄弟時光易失。剎那剎那。念念念念。一時一時。一日一日。直至九十日為一夏。汝等後生家。九十日中。出入息內。過却幾恒河。明朝又是解夏也。今夜鳴鐘擊皷。聚集少時。已證入未證入。已諦當未諦當。今者幸遇我空王如來垂慈。咸放十字街頭廖胡子聞與麼道。醉夢中。打兩个筋斗。起來連呌數聲。快活快活。雪嶺泥牛出海。方山鼻孔遼天。引得猪肉桉頭鄧。屠魚行內李媼。說禪說道。眼空四海。閻老子鋪席頓然蕭索。冷地裏怒得。頷腮下癭大如斗。山僧主丈子。却呵呵大笑道。你這一隊窮鬼子。且莫空自歡喜。妄自煩惱。須知道。江南兩浙。春寒秋熱。喝一喝。卓主丈。下座。

[0246a16] 小參。今夜是幹楞嚴會。四人兄弟。請小參。不免因風吹火。散夏三日也。諸兄弟。深山裏。秋來轉見寂寞。山僧而今發心。作个主人。管領你諸兄弟。些小又不得。不如每人。與你一座雪峯山去。只如許多人。一箇雪峯山。又如何分得徧。會麼。但辨肯心。管取具足。今日雪峯不比往時兄弟。若不是有力量人。大家出手扶持。立見厨寒無煙。鐘魚不鳴。空上座雖然住院。只是箇禪和子。去住尋常。其柰先聖道場。要人整頓。不是小事。你輩兄弟。當此時節。如同船遇風。胡越可使為左右手。況祖師門下客。自家家裏人。其忍坐視。恬不為意。大丈夫勇於為義。大家出來。一似夏內。大佛殿上諷楞嚴呪相似。異口同聲吼一上。無見頂相無為心。佛應念現前。呪道圓成。又如鋸火一般。火無定位。但不緩慢。不中輟。則火事現前。做化主亦復如是。他州異縣。各不相識。只當人辨一片真實心。從之者。沛然如水就下。則化道成辨。兄弟諷呪。要進前。鋸火要著力。化主要發心。且道踞師子床。坐在眾人前底。又要个甚麼。你兄弟今夜這裏立地。忽若一時悟去。山僧磨墨。與你寫疏。

[0249a14] 冬至夜小參。拈拄杖。卓一下云。毗盧大樓閣。八字打開了也。不論久參初學。普請入來。一入則一切入。一了則一切了。便能坐斷毗盧頂。不稟釋迦文。當恁麼時。彌勒收身避路。雪峯留口喫飯。何故。盖是諸人。如實而證。如實而入。如實而了。如實而見。即心即佛用不著。非心非佛用不著。五位三路用不得。德山棒臨濟喝用不著。但有言說。總用不著。既用不著。又說不得。雪峯今夜鳴鐘擊皷。聚集諸人。不可只麼休去。

This is a koan that explores transformation, encompassing themes of birth and death, and the concepts of before and after. It draws parallels to the koan, “Show me the face you had before your parents were born,” and questions the nature of existence prior to emergence.

Chi Men might assert that a rose is simply a rose, but what is it before it breaks through the soil? What does “before” mean? What about “after”? What existed before conception, before the union of your parents' genetic material? Where were you then, and where are you now? Is there a concept of time as we understand it?

What was your face before your parents existed? What is Chi Men conveying, and why does this koan seem to reverse the usual understanding of transformation? Clearly, before a lotus rises from the water, it is not a flower but a leaf. Similarly, a rose starts as a seed, then becomes a root, vine, and leaf before blooming into a flower.

How does the lotus rise from the water, and what does it signify? What is Chi Men teaching us? Is there a distinction between before and after? Is this the essence of the koan? What represents the absolute and the relative in this context? Is the absolute prior to or subsequent to the relative?

It appears that before emerging, we exist in the absolute realm, while after, we enter the relative realm. If this is true, how can we achieve enlightenment in the relative realm? Yet, Shakyamuni attained enlightenment in this realm and proclaimed that all sentient beings are enlightened alongside him—here and now.

Is there truly a difference between “before” and “after”? Is there a prior “before” or a subsequent “after”? Is there an “after” that comes before? Is there a “before” that follows after? Is the face I had before my parents were born the same as the one I present to you now? How can that be?

I am a blend of the essence of many historical figures, both revered and reviled. How can we delineate between before and after if I embody all of humanity? Each of us contains the essence of all people, creating a collective existence—one complex, flawed, joyful, and loving body.

Is there truly a distinction between before and after? What lesson does this koan impart? Were the ancient Buddhas mistaken about birth and death? Do these concepts exist separately, or are they intertwined?

Is there a birth that precedes death, or a death that comes before birth? Or are birth and death merely different aspects of the same phenomenon? Perhaps what we perceive as birth and death is simply a continuous flow of creation, akin to a river that moves past various obstacles and refuse.

Are we standing beside the river, in it, or are we the river itself, along with everything in it—the water, rocks, debris, and even the lotus flower?

🪷

###### 444.

An old woman entered the monastery after dark.

Joshu said, "What are you doing here?" The old woman said, "I came for a night's lodging." Joshu said, "What do you think this place is?" The old woman laughed aloud and left.

NOTE: The old woman may not be as learned as a Zen monk, but

she is "one with the Way." The encounter between Joshu and the old woman is thus of a more direct and violent nature than the usual encounter with "pursuers of the Way." When Joshu is simply himself, he has the upper hand. Here he simply drives her away.

 445.

When Joshu was outside of the monastery one day, he came across

an old woman carrying a basket. He immediately asked, "Where are you going?" The old woman said, "I am on my way to steal Joshu's bamboo shoots." Joshu said, "What will you do if you run into Joshu?" The old woman came up to Joshu and gave him a slap.

NOTE: Here Joshu behaves in a somewhat overly conscious manner.

When he is overly conscious of the situation, the old woman overpowers him.

Joshu seemed open to women approaching him on equal terms. I wonder if any and which might have seen his mind and determined they were ok with it? Are clomping horse feet related?

The Four Statements of Zen ELI5

1. A TRANSMISSION OF UNDERSTANDING that isn't based on learning history
2. Not based on being taught doctrines/truths/ideas
3. Pointing directly at the activity of awareness
4. Recognizing immutable awareness and achieving the Buddhahood of the Zen Masters

Doctrinal Positions inherent in the Four Statements

Now, with extra nutritious examples, via https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/wiki/famous_cases

1. The transmission isn't learning or gaining knowledge, not a catechism, not a "way" or method
   • Soto Founder Dongshan's "no entrance", bird path (without method/practice)
2. This transmission is not built on a foundation of receiving wisdom from another

• Wumen's preface: It is said that things coming in through the gate can never be your own treasures. What is gained from external circumstances will perish in the end. (non-receiving)

3. Pointing directly at something you know and have direct experience of

• Nanquan's Ordinary Mind is the Way ("teaching" in Zen is immediate, personal, and that moment contextual)

4. Buddhahood arises ONLY from recognition of what is inherent

• Mazu's brick polishing (transformation error), Zhaozhou's 16 foot golden buddha (all things are Buddha)

Clumsy work, ewk

First of all, I haven't practiced.

Second of all, we are trying to explain Science to Numberologists. So it's going to be a clunky comparison.

Think about it: Scientists make observations, Numberologists make observations. Scientists have theories, Numberologists have theories. Scientists make predictions, Numberologists make predictions. Yet these two things could not be more different.

1. Religion says: Believe this stuff from the past to be part of this group. Zen says that the transmission of the Zen tradition is the postdoctoral research mind.

2. Religion says: A priest can teach you and ordain you. Zen says nobody can tell you how to be yourself day-to-day.

3. Religion says: The Eternal Truth is a matter of faith acceptance. Zen says demonstration is the only reality, no "truth" therein.

4. Religion says: Attainment is transformation into something new. Zen says you are inherently a buddha, Mastery is seeing that reality in every moment.

We talk about koans (historical records, mostly transcripts of conversations by real people about real questions) all the time in this forum because Zen Masters make it the core of Zen for lots of interesting reasons (like walking alone through the universe) but most people don't formally understand how this divides the Zen tradition from religion, and going back to 1900's scholarship, divides D.T. Suzuki and Blyth from religious profiteers like Yamada, Alan Watts, and everybody that does Zazen prayer-meditation while calling it "Zen".

Essentially, dividing the academically competent from the religious apologists.

Let's take a recent post which became a podcast, and most of the discussion was entirely focused on WTF translation:

1. https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/comments/1f4aquf/29_xuefengs_feathers_and_wings_new_aiassisted/

2. https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/comments/1f8rvd1/podcast_932024_xuefengs_feathers_and_wings/

Here's the Case:

烏石因雪峰扣門，石問，誰。峰云，鳳凰兒。石曰，作麼生。峰曰， 來啗老觀。石開門搊住曰，道道。峰擬議，石便托開掩卻門。峰住後 示眾云，我當時若入得老觀門，你這一隊噇酒糟漢，向甚處摸索.

Translation by Grant, a religious apologist

Xuefeng knocked on Wushi’s door. “Who is it?” Wushi inquired. “The son of the male and female phoenix,” replied Xuefeng. “What are you up to?” asked Wushi. “I have come to chew on Old Guan.” Wushi opened the door and grabbing hold of Xuefeng said, “Speak! Speak!” When Xuefeng hesitated, Wushi kicked him out and closed the door. Afterward, Xuefeng instructed the assembly, saying, “At that time if I had been able to enter the gate of Old Guan, what would you bunch of gobblers of dregs have to grope for?”

You can ask how we know Grant is a religious apologist, and the easy answer is (a) a degree in religion, (b) embrace of religious apologetics of 20th century (c) never provides arguments for her claims about who is Zen... or defines Buddhism... or feels obligated to.

Now, as Religious Studies majors go, this isn't the worst translation.

Let's ask Chatgpt 4.o:

"Because of Xuě Fēng knocking on the door, Wū Shí asked, 'Who is it?'" "Fēng replied, 'It's the [Garuda].'" "Shí asked, 'What are you doing?'" "Fēng said, 'Coming to eat at the old temple.'" "Shí opened the door and seizing him said, 'Speak, speak.'" "As Fēng pondered, Shí immediately pushed him away and closed the door."

"Afterward, Fēng addressed the assembly, saying, 'Had I entered the old temple gate at that time, you bunch of drunken dregs, where would you be groping?'"

And let's have ewk ELI5

1. Xuefeng kocks on the door of Teacher Wushi
2. Wushi asks who is it?
3. Xuefeng says it's a baby King of Birds, wants wisdom
4. Wushi opens the door, grabs Xuefeng, demands Xuefeng give the wisdom
5. Xuefeng chokes, Wushi slams the door in his face.
6. Xuefeng later uses this historical event (koan) to teach his own congregation, who has come to him for wisdom.
7. Xuefeng says, if I had gotten any wisdom at that time, I wouldn't be here now to teach you (by not giving you wisdom).

What's the damage, Captain?

Does it seem like Grant understands the Case any better than ChatGPT? I don't think so.

The doctrine of not-receiving is one of the many that absolutely separates Zen from Buddhism, but Grant's translation doesn't give us any of that. In fact, it obscures it.

When you ELI5, you have to be able to point to HOW THE KOAN HISTORY FITS. Fits with other teachings by that Master, fits with the Zen lineage, not to mention fits together with the commentary of later masters on that historical record.

Miazong's Criticism

What we see in the tradition of historical-record-koan-commentary is specific criticisms by later Masters. I think it's pretty clear that Grant doesn't do anything that ChatGPT doesn't do, especially with regard to making Miaozong's criticism explicit.

If you can't say what's at stake for the people you are translating, then you aren't translating. It's not just Grant's wholehearted embrace of 1900's Buddhist apologetics, it's that her religious education didn't prepare her for critically thinking about the text.

A lot of the conversation we've had in this forum regarding seated meditation and its connection to Zen stems from misunderstandings related to language and translation. I'll do my best to clarify these points and help resolve the confusion.

Translation and Transliteration

First of all, we need to understand the difference between translation and transliteration. Transliteration is the process of converting words or text from one writing system to another while preserving the original pronunciation as closely as possible. Unlike translation, which focuses on conveying meaning, transliteration is concerned with representing the sounds of the original language using the alphabet or symbols of a different language, without implying meaning.

For example, the Chinese name "北京" is transliterated into "Beijing" in English. "Beijing" isn’t an English word; it is simply using the English alphabet to approximate the pronunciation of "北京" in Chinese. A translation of "北京" would be "Northern Capital," but since we don’t refer to the capital of China by that name in the West, we keep "Beijing." Transliteration is commonly used for names and complex terms from a language that don't have a direct equivalent in others.

Now, "Zazen" is also a transliteration. The Japanese word transliterated as "Zazen" is written as "坐禪." For example, Dogen's book "普勸坐禪儀" is transliterated into English as "Fukan Zazen Gi," which represents the pronunciation. A literal translation could be "Universal Recommendation for the Practice of Seated Meditation." However, since the English word "Meditation" can have different meanings that don’t fully capture what 坐禪 refers to in Japanese, and because there isn’t an exact English equivalent, many people opt to use the transliteration and keep it as "Zazen." The term "Zazen" is symply using the English alphabet to approximate the pronunciation of "坐禪" in Japanese, without implying an specific meaning.

As you may notice, "坐禪" is also a Chinese word. The Japanese language adopted many Chinese characters into its writing system. If we transliterate 坐禪 from Chinese to English, we get "Zuochan." A literal translation could be "Seated meditation," but due to the ambiguity of the word "meditation" and its inability to fully capture the meaning of 坐禪, many people choose to use transliterations such as "Zuochan," "tso-chan," "seated Dhyana," "seated Chan," and other variations. Again, the term "Zuochan" simply uses the English alphabet to approximate the pronunciation of "坐禪" in Chinese, without conveying a specific meaning in English.

So "Zazen" and "Zuochan" are both transliterations of 坐禪—"Zazen" from Japanese and "Zuochan" from Chinese—but they represent the same word. Just as "Zen" and "Chan" are the same word and can be used interchangeably, "Zazen" and "Zuochan" are also the same word and can be used interchangeably. We are not implying any specific meaning; we are simply conveying the pronunciation of a foreign term. Japanese speakers will pronounce 坐禪 as "Zazen," while Chinese speakers will pronounce it as "Zuochan," but as you can see, they refer to the same original word.

Since Zen was first spread to the West by the Japanese, we mostly use Japanese transliterations.

坐禪 in China

The term "坐禪" has a long history in China and appears in many Chan texts centuries before Dogen. In these texts, it often refers to maintaining a seated posture.

For example, from the case 12 of Blue Cliff Record, we have this:

One day [Hsueh Feng] went along with Yen T'ou to visit Ch'in Shan. They got as far as an inn on Tortoise Mountain (in Hunan) when they were snowed in. Day after day Yen T'ou just slept, while Hsueh Feng constantly sat in meditation. Yen T'ou yelled at him and said, "Get some sleep! Every day you're on the meditation seat, exactly like a clay image.

Here, the term that Cleary translated as "sat in meditation," as shown in the Chinese Blue Cliff Record here, is "坐禪", which can be transliterated as "Zuochan." Yen T’ou scolded Hsueh Feng because he spent a lot of time doing Zuochan, looking like a clay image. At this point, both were already Chan monks.

From the Dahui letters, which Broughton published with both the translation and the Chinese text here, we find this:

Of old, “when Yaoshan was doing Chan sitting, Shitou asked: ‘What are you doing here?’ Yaoshan said: ‘Not doing a single thing.’ Shitou said: ‘If in that way, then it’s good-for-nothing sitting.’ Yaoshan said: ‘If it’s good-fornothing sitting, then it’s doing something.’ Shitou assented to that.”

Here, the term Broughton translated as "Chan sitting" is also "坐禪," pronounced "Zuochan" in Chinese and "Zazen" in Japanese. We can see that Yaoshan’s 坐禪 is described as being seated without any mental activity or purpose at all. He is detaching from discursive thinking, a typical example of meditation.

There is also a well-known anecdote from Mazu, which we can find in Suzuki's "Zen Doctrine of No Mind," that says:

Observing how assiduously Mat-su was engaged in practising tso-chan every day. Yuan Huai-jang said: “Friend, what is your intention in practising tso-chan?" Mat-su said: “I wish to attain Buddhahood.’' Thereupon Huai-jang took up a brick and began to polish it. Mat-su asked: “What are you engaged in?” “I want to make a mirror of it." “No amount of polishing makes a mirror out of a brick.” Huai-jang at once retorted: “No amount of practising tso-chan will make you attain Buddahood."

Here, we see that "tso-chan," also transliteration of 坐禪, is described as a practice or activity that won’t lead you to enlightenment. In this book, Suzuki makes literally clear that the Japanese pronunciation of tso-chan is zazen.

Now, if we look further back, before Bodhidharma traveled to China, "坐禪" already referred to seated mediation practices. For example, the 4th-century Chinese monk Kumarajiva wrote a book called 坐禪三昧經, which can be transliterated as "Zuochan Sanmei Jing" and translated as "Sutra on Sitting Meditation and Samadhi." This book can be found on the internet and if we read it, we see it is a manual for seated meditation practices.

There are many other references to 坐禪 as a seated practice before Dogen. I have provided these examples to keep this brief, but if you check for yourself, you can surely find more, I can also share additional references if you want.

Dogen didn't invent "Zazen"

As I showed above, the Japanese word "Zazen" (坐禪) was already in use in China centuries before Dogen, and it was commonly understood as a practice of maintaining a seated posture with different types of mental activity, or no mental activity at all. We can even find this term in Japanese texts before Dogen. For example, Eisai, who founded the Rinzai school in Japan and died when Dogen was 15 years old, wrote a Japanese text called 興禅護国論 ("Kōzen gokokuron") in which he talks about Zazen (坐禪). This text is dated to 1198, two years before Dogen was born.

Chinese Chan texts were already in circulation in Japan before Dogen began teaching on zazen. Dogen himself acknowledges this in his Shobogenzo. Therefore, when Dogen started discussing 坐禪, people recognized it as the same term found in the Chinese texts. However, Dogen's understanding differed from what was previously known from these Chinese texts, which is one reason why he faced opposition in Japan and had to provide explanation for this in his texts, like for example, in this passage from his Bendowa:

Question: Some people say that to know the Buddha Dharma you only have to understand the principle "this mind itself is Buddha". You do not have to chant the Discourses with the mouth or train the body in the Buddha Way. Just knowing that the Buddha Dharma is originally inherent in your self is complete Awakening. There is no need to seek anything from others let alone bothering to practise zazen.

Answer: This is completely wrong. If what you say were true then anyone with any intelligence at all could not fail to understand it on having heard it. Studying the Buddha Dharma is letting go of the perspective of self and other. If you could become Awakened by thinking that the "self" itself is the Buddha, then Sakyamuni would not have gone to the travails of giving instructions long ago. This is evident in the subtle standards of the ancient Masters.

We can see in the question clear elements of Zen teaching that were already known in Japan, such as the belief that everyone is originally enlightened and that no practice, including Zazen, is necessary. This is why Dogen and some of his followers had to develop a discourse on Zazen that would be compatible with the teachings of the old Chinese masters while maintaining it as the essential practice. However, for many, this never quite fit.

Modern scholarship on the topic

Current scholarship on this topic supports what I'm saying. The consensus is that Dogen's discourse on "坐禪" (zazen) differs from what earlier Chinese masters referred to as "坐禪." They don't claim that he invented the practice; rather, they argue that Dogen's innovation lies in the phrase "只管打坐," which is a Chinese phrase transliterated from Japanese as "Shikantaza," and translated as "Simply sitting in meditation." Note that here, the term "meditation" is derived from "打坐," which also refers to seated meditation practices in Chinese, but it is not a term that has been incorporated into standard Japanese for seated meditation, unlike 坐禪 "Zazen". Dogen atributed this phrase to the Chinese master Rujing, but Scholars say it is not present in extant Rujing teachings.

What Dogen meant by "只管打坐" is that seated meditation is the only practice you should focus on; it is the essential practice for Zen. One shouldn’t need to read much Chinese Chan texts to know that this is not the place where Chinese masters typically positioned seated meditation, and this discourse is rarely found even in Buddhism in general. That is why Bielefeldt argues that Dogen and his followers had a hard time reconciling his teachings with those of the Chinese and other Japanese schools of Buddhism.

One thing that can be noticed from scholars like Bielefeldt is that when discussing Chinese Chan, they use Chinese transliterations such as "Chan" and "tso-chan." However, when talking about Japanese Zen, they use Japanese transliterations like "Zen" and "zazen." But they know they refer to the same word, this is evident for example in Bielefeldt's book on Dogen's zazen, where he uses "tso-chan" and "seated meditation" interchangeably in the same paragraph when referring to Chinese texts, but "zazen" and "seated mediation" when it is a Japanese text. For example:

Probably few Ch'an monks, even in this period, actually escaped the practice of seated meditation. The Sixth Patriarch himself, in early versions of the Liu-su t'an ching, leaves as his final teaching to his disciples the advice that they continue in the practice of tso-ch'an, just as they did when he was alive... Ma-tsu himself, though he is chided by his master for it, is described by his biographers as having constantly practiced tso-ch'an. According to the "Ch'an-men kuei-shih," Po-chang found it necessary to install long daises in his monasteries to accommodate the monks in their many hours of tso-ch' an.

We can clearly see how he uses "seated meditation" as a translation for "tso-chan". However, when he uses that term, he is obvioulsy not referring to Dogen's seated meditation, in which case he uses "zazen". This shows he knows that "tso-chan" and "zazen" are transliterations of the same word and thus translates the same, but he uses them differently to clarify the specific context and discourse he is referring to.

In Summary

"Zazen," "Zuochan," "tso-chan," "Seated Dhyana," and "Seated Chan" are all transliterations of the same term: 坐禪. They represent the pronunciation of this word in different languages, but do not imply a specific meaning in English. Originally, the term 坐禪 has been refered to meditation, in both China and Japan, since at least the 4th century.

"Seated meditation" and "seated concentration" are common literal translations of 坐禪. However, since neither "meditation" nor "concentration" fully captures its meaning, many authors choose to leave it untranslated and use transliterations such as "Zazen" or "Zuochan," etc, depending on whether they are referring to a Chinese or Japanese text, but the term is written the same in both languages.

Seated meditation/坐禪 is a term with diverse meanings depending on the author, school, or sect. Generally, it is seen as a practice for training attention and awareness and detaching from reflexive, discursive thinking, all while maintaining a seated posture. Zen masters, when using this term, understand that in their culture it is often associated primarily with the posture. So I think they emphasize the importance of the correct mental approach, assuming the posture is taken for granted.

Chinese Chan monks like Xuefeng, Yaoshan, Mazu, and others are found in Chan texts doing 坐禪 as well as teaching it. However, this is not regarded as the essential practice or the primary means of attaining enlightenment in mainstream Chan. In fact, it is commonly criticized, which obviously implies that the practice existed—otherwise, why would they warn against something that nobody was doing?.

This makes it impossible that Dogen invented the practice, which no scholar has ever claimed. What scholars attribute to Dogen's innovation is the phrase "Shikantaza," which means that seated meditation is the only practice Zen followers should focus on. This may be at odds with previous Chan teachings on meditation, so what Dogen did was change the discourse on meditation, but the practice itself was already known and perfomed by previous Chan monks.

It is also important to clarify that not all Japanese masters understood zazen in the same way as Dogen, and some actually aligned more with the discourse of Chinese masters on the subject. But this is a topic for another post.

All of this makes the claim that "Dogen invented zazen" found on the wiki and repeated by some users in the forum, etymologically and historically false. I understand that this isn’t an academic space, but maintaining such a misrepresentation is a bad look for a secular forum dedicated to Zen, highlighting a low level of understanding of the topic.

I hope this helps.

Has anyone dug at all into the way Zen Masters use mirroring in the language (for lack of a better term)?

There is a stylistic pattern of using repeated words either the same word with the same character or homophones using different characters.

Some examples are 'Buddha! Buddha' or 'Speak! Speak!' or 'Bright, bright' or in the title of Hsin Hsin Ming. There are more examples that I can't think of off the top of my head. It's just a pattern that jumped out at me.

I'm interested primarily in the literary angle though that's not separate from anything else that zen masters were trying to do.

Was this a common trope at the time? Aid for memory as Zen was an oral tradition for much of its history? A poetic pattern that points to the self-nature? Noise caused by translation? What do you think?

#Post(s) in Question

Post:  https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/comments/1f4aquf/29_xuefengs_feathers_and_wings_new_aiassisted/

Link to episode: https://sites.libsyn.com/407831/9-3-2024-xuefengs-feathers-and-wings-miaozongs-reposte

Link to all episodes: https://sites.libsyn.com/407831

Buymeacoffee, so I'm not accused of going it alone:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/ewkrzen

#What did we end up talking about?

Koan aka Case in plain English:

1. Xuefeng kocks on the door of Teacher Wushi
2. Wushi asks who is it?
3. Xuefeng says it's a baby King of Birds, wants wisdom
4. Wushi opens the door, grabs Xuefeng, demands Xuefeng give the wisdom
5. Xuefeng chokes, Wushi slams the door in his face.
6. Xuefeng later uses this historical event (koan) to teach his own congregation, who has come to him for wisdom.
7. Xuefeng says, if I had gotten any wisdom at that time, I wouldn't be here now to teach you.

#You can be on the podcast! Use a pseudonym! Nobody cares!

Add a comment if there is a post you want somebody to get interviewed about, or you agree to be interviewed. We are now using libsyn, so you don't even have to show your face. You just get a link to an audio call.

Who do you love? Or are you not that into them?

First, let's start with an analogy:

Catechism defines faith :: as Group Name defines group.

Catholics are different from Hindus because of the invisible stuff each group believes in, and the same way the New York Yankees are defined by their name. Any individual Yankee might leave the team, but the identity of the team doesn't change because the team is a belief in identity, the same way that Catholics and Hindus believe in invisible stuff giving those religions identities.

This is one way we can unravel the tangle that "Meditation Buddhism" and "New Age" and "Mysticism" aren't real identities, because they have no catechism, the team doesn't have a consistent name. One week they are the New York Yunks, then next it's the New Jersey Jerseys. That's not really a team because it has no name, no identity.

Why don't you do right, like some other Zen do?

The Four Statements of Zen define the limits of what Zen isn't more than the Four Statements define what Zen is. In this way, it's like a inverse catechism, a Bizzaro catechism, if you will. The repercussions of this can be felt intimately in how Zen Masters reject identity impositions, the opposite of what religions do. Here is an example, where Soto Founder Dongshan, aka Caodong founder Tung-shan, rejects the identity-catechism of his own teacher, after Dongshan gets enlightened under another teacher and then claims Soto lineage:

"Since you didn't actually receive any teaching, why are you conducting a memorial?" asked the monk.

"Why should I turn my back on him?" replied the Master.

"If you began by meeting Nan-ch'uan, why do you now conduct a memorial feast for Yun-yen?" asked the monk.

"It is not my former master's virtue or Buddha Dharma that I esteem, only that he did not make exhaustive explanations for me," replied the Master.

"Since you are conducting this memorial feast for the former master, do you agree with him or not?" asked the monk.

The Master said, "I agree with half and don't agree with half."

Catholics and Hindus can't do that or they won't be Catholic or Hindu. Meditation Buddhists, New Agers, and Mystics, who have a dozen forums but can agree in none of them, don't have any "thing" to be because they aren't in a group. They aren't affiliated with a catechism.

What's Dongshan Affiliated with though? Sure, sure, it's easy to say "Zen Masters are affiliated with Zen enlightenment", but even people who lived butt-to-pitskie with Zen Masters struggled to understand Enlightenment Culture.

Yesterday Upon the Stair: Zen Challenge

The other side of this problem (for Zen students) is elegantly illustrated by a Case in which (and I don't have it in front of me) an heir of Zhaozhou's denies the "oak tree in the front garden" teaching. Asked about Zhaozhou teaching that, the heir says "Don't defame my former teacher" or something. How can quoting a Zen Master defame them?

It's easy to understand if you immerse yourself in Zen culture for a minute... Zhaozhou defines himself as he goes. He isn't defined by the oak tree, anymore than he is defined by upholding or denying Buddha nature, both of which he did.

Zhaozhou is who he manifests as. That's it. There is no other identity, and how could there be?

As Huineng so cleverly illustrated THERE IS NO MIND MIRROR, THERE IS NO BODHI TREE, THERE IS NO PRACTICE, THERE IS NO DUST.

This of course pisses religions off to no end, which is why 8FP Buddhists lynched the 2nd Zen Patriarch, and Zazen prayer-meditationers spent the 20th Century lying about Zen being based on meditation... and claiming, illiterately, that all Zen history was a tongue twister meant to confuse you into prayer.

B AS U R

So, in Zen, you define yourself by living, not by being a joiner or a follower or a believer.

Once we put that corner piece down, lots of other pieces make sense... Deshan can burn the sutras becasue he doesn't have a teaching.

Huangbo can bow to a statue of Zen Master Buddha because Zen Master Buddha doesn't save people from being themselves.

       Motivate yourself by being you

Those people pretending supernatural truths are slaves, and it can't be more obvious than their deeply felt anxiety and mental conflict over AMA!! AMA!! Anybody who goes grocery shopping can AMA about it, because grocery shopping is real, unlike prayer-meditation, mysticism, and faith.

Just be you. If you can be you, and you are inherently a Buddha, who can stand up to you?

It turns out, only other Buddhas.

Game on.

When a single mote of dust flies, it blocks out the sky; when a single mustard seed falls, it covers the earth. You have already gone beyond this perception - what more is there for me to say?

What sky is there beyond the mote of dust that blocks it out?

Are mustard seeds spicy?

Beyond this perception; let us stay before this beyond for the moment, have you seen it?

Long time lurker here. I recently started a podcast called KOANVERSATION, where each episode takes a koan from the Mumonkan and, through a process of conversation with an invited guest, attempts to hit at the kind of thinking it is intended to inspire.

I also write and perform a song inspired by each Koan.

My Zen credentials are nonexistent - I have been somewhat of a Buddhist for a while and have read and thought about Zen for a couple of years, but am certainly no expert - though I think this is the point: the podcast illustrates the traps we can fall into if we approach koans the wrong way.

Case in point, the first episode about Joshu's Dog, where my guest and I spend too much time philosophizing about dogs.

But the second episode, about Hyakujo's Fox, is much stronger IMO, and this Wednesday I'll release episode 3 about Gutei's Finger.

The podcast is irreverent, which I would hope can be said to be in the spirit of Zen, and is aimed at a general audience, with the hope that people discover some of the richness of koan practice.

It's part of a larger Substack I'm writing, partly about Zen but also philosophy more broadly (for instance I talk about how Rian Johnson's controversial 2017 Star Wars film The Last Jedi illustrates aspects of Zen).

You can also find it on Apple and Spotify.

I hope it proves to be of interest!

My text

On the Transmission of Mind. Huangbo.

Mind is like the void in which there is no confusion or evil, as when the sun wheels through it shining upon the four corners of the world. For, when the sun rises and illuminates the whole earth, the void gains not in brilliance; and, when the sun sets, the void does not darken. The phenomena of light and dark alternate with each other, but the nature of the void remains unchanged. So it is with the Mind of the Buddha and of sentient beings. If you look upon the Buddha as presenting a pure, bright or Enlightened appearance, or upon sentient beings as presenting a foul, dark or mortal-seeming appearance, these conceptions resulting from attachment to form will keep you from supreme knowledge, even after the passing of as many aeons as there are sands in the Ganges.

You are not to blame for

Bittersweet distractors

Dare not speak its name

Dedicated to all human beings

Because we separate, Like ripples on a blank shore. (In rainbows) Because we separate, Like ripples on a blank shore.

Reckoner. Take me with yer. Dedicated to all human beings.

Radiohead. Reckoner

There is only the One Mind and not a particle of anything else on which to lay hold, for this Mind is the Buddha. If you students of the Way do not awake to this Mind substance, you will overlay Mind with conceptual thought, you will seek the Buddha outside yourselves, and you will remain attached to forms, pious practices and so on, all of which are HARMFUL and not at all the way to supreme knowledge.

Slight of hand, Jump off the end, Into a clear lake, No one around. Just dragonflies. Fantasize, No one gets hurt. You've done nothing wrong.

Slide your hand, Jump off the end. The water's clear, And innocent. The water's clear, And innocent.

I imagine there are many of you here, who like myself, were forced by some circumstance at some point to, see once and for all the utter madness at the heart of our, hamanties, way of living. Why is this my text. I made it bold. I wrote it in all caps.

*If you students of the Way do not awake to this Mind substance, you will overlay Mind with conceptual thought, you will seek the Buddha outside yourselves, and you will remain attached to forms, pious practices (or perhaps more simply, your workd view) and so on, all of which are HARMFUL...

Harmful. What is this harm that Huangbo points to. From the earliest record, humanities story is a dark aimless journey from one horrifying, needless and delusional human atrocity after another. This Harm. It's presence is there in the most ancient of human records. Unmistakable. It's presence is, here and now, all around us, pervading this global human society. Unmistakable. Undeniable. We are all of us to blame for the madness of this world of ours. But we are likewise blameless. Without any other recourse we were conceived and pulled from our Mother's womb into this madness and set upon a path from which there is no deviation. From that moment we have been compelled forward through time. Ceaselessly compelled. Not a single moments pause. No rest.

As children when we looked on in horror at the rot creeping around the edges of everything we were told it was just our imagination, that we don't understand, that our fear is unfounded and everything is fine and to go play. We were told to grow up. To just deal with it. We were told to keep it to ourselves. To shut up. And then we were told to hold on tight to the things we cared about, to hold tight to things that cannot be held, or we would lose them. And as again it all passed beyond our reach we were told to it was wrong, it was bad, made to feel ashamed, made to feel like we didn't care enough, appreciate enough, try hard enough.

We were taught to struggle with our nature. To toil. To hold onto moments that had already passed. We were taught to identify with this mind, to choose it again and again and so alienate ourselves from literally everyone and everything in existence. Because of the ceasless motion of this mind we imagine ourselves to face this life alone. Despite the glaring reality that every living being on this planet is of the same nature, subject to inescapanle certainties, to grow older, suffer illness to ever greater degrees, to lose everyone we love, everything we hold dear, to experience the passing of our every moment of happiness, peace, satisfaction, comfort, understanding. The impermanence of everything we depend upon, every circumstance we've come to accept, and impermanence of our every last moment.... and we will die.

Death will come to end this one and only fleeting life for all time, within the space of a single moment... in passing. Ive seen it happen. More than once. We imagine ourselves to be alone in all of it. I've seen a man and a woman who had been married for 30 years, he slowly dying in his hospital bed as she opens the blinds and talks about what a beautiful day it is, reads the impersonal sentiments of acquaintances and oldest friends, children, get better soon! And he tries to pretend to give a fuck and then he pretends to sleep while she pretends to watch reality TV. He knows he's dying. She knows it. The medical team knows it. But it remains unacknowledged amongst eachother. So their they are in a room filled with constant tension paralyzed by the very same fear. When they need to connect more than they ever have before they're suddenly light years apart. In this case I lost my patience. I opened myself up and we talked and I told him I didn't think he was going to survive much longer, he told me he was tired of fighting, he was ready to die, I immediately told the docs, he was immediately placed on comfort care, all the tension evaporated, we all felt closer, relieved, and then his wife laid down in bed with him and they held eachother and talked. Three days or so later, my next shift he was gone a new patient was in his room just beginning the process of bone marrow transplant. Allogenic stem cell transplants have a 95% mortality rate at 5 years post procedure.

I've always been a pretty open person about serious things. But that's uncommon in the hospital. Certain and impending death frequently goes unacknowledged, patient takes a sudden turn for the worse, and spends their last few days of life unconscious. It's absurd. No one should face their own death alone and unspoken. There is no excuse. Avoiding discomfort, anxiety is a bitter cold comfort for innumerable husbands, wives, siblings, friends, children... parents of children.

This illusory separation, individualism serves us not. There is no time for it. We watch our selves in detachment while we go about compulsively giving rise to, exacerbating and hastening the hellscape awaiting our children and theirs. And the slow path to our extinction and the extinction of innumerable living beings. We are fully aware of what a horrible misjudgment we've made. We are chained to this madness. Chains of our own making. Our shared delusion is not at all hidden from us. So why? What is it there in this mind that is worth this madness. Soul? A life everlasting, a paradise beyond this existence? Knowing. Being right. Certainty. There are countless humans who have spent the great majority of their life up unto their death looking for something beyond, greater, more, other... than that which is. This. Thus. Such. This moment to which all of everyone and everything belong to entirely. This moment where existence unfolds. Our existence is unfolding. It is becoming. It's absolutely boundless. How could there be anything beyond this boundlessness. Right?

Huike went searching for it. It turned out well for him in end. The mythological hunter Narcissus (word is pre-greek and of unknowin etymology and origin) went looking for it up to the very moment of his death. As was foretold by a soothsayer upon his birth. Said that as long as he did not perceive his own self he would live a lifespan appropriate for a demi-god. To define and distinguish amongst the things around you gives rise to otherness. Otherness gives rise to a naghing sense of selfness that can never truly manifest. A self that exists exclusively from the perspective of others. One cannot look for mind with mind. So this nagging sense of selfness, beyond its practical utility serves only to alienate one from all things other, as well as that which appeared for a moment, at least, to be self, only to promptly vanish leaving a void, sensation of lacking that did not exist before. A hole if need that cannot be filled or satisfied. Only renounced. The Adam and Eve archetype. The human condition. Anatta/Atman.

We know all of this. We have for thousands of years. Why do we continue on with this madness? Occasionally an ant will mistakingly lay a trail of pheremones (ideally to a food source, home, a new home) that loops. And entire colonies have been observed to seek for something that does not exist in this looping path until they all die of starvation, exhaustion, dehydration. Millions of them. I think many take our self perceived human intelligence and technological advancement to somehow preclude delusion, madness, insanity. A rather self-serving assumption. That delusion is reserved for those who've fallen through cracks into addiction and homelessness, or schizophrenia and things like that. Rather than things like global capitalism gambling, the trucks that used to spray huge thick clouds of pesticide up and down my block when I was a kid to kill mosquitoes and lots of other living things indiscriminately, or allowing the ceasless everchanging stream of activity in one's head to define itself and who and what all things are and aren't. And just sort of taking it as a given. Because it feels good to "know".

Don't get me wrong though. I'm a satisfied man. Happy with my life. I could die this moment and would do it without regret. Imo the fleeting nature of life makes it all the more wonderful, when I take the time to notice anyhow. I'm lucky in that I have a terminal neurodegenerative disease (it's okay honestly. There is a Terminal illness lurking withing all of us. We're not alone) at 43 years old that has afforded me the pay and time to step back from our conventional way of life to a great degree. Lucky that I can spend most my time and effort caring for my boy, wife, mom, and all kinds of wonderful beings that spring from the earth outside my door. Luck I'm able to spend so much time these past few years with the gardens that I sprung from no differently than any other Daffodil (Narcissus;)) or Moon Flower blossom. Lucky I don't have to drive somewhere and go places everyday. Hell I've even warmed up some to the fire ants. (Not quite to the hammerhead planarians though. Nasty buggers.

Aside... I always wonder why anyone would bother to study Dharma without considering there own delusions.

Anyhow, why do we continue with what we know to be indiscriminately harmful?

There isn't a single answer for 7 billion humans. But there might be some easily discovered answers for why you personally continue with the madness? Distraction is one cause of my own contribution to this samsara, so to speak.

Song lyrics? For me music, art is a kind of spark that leads to contemplation. I like sharing art. But no. I'm not making some claim that, Hemingway, JW Waterhouse, Jeff Buckley are Zen Masters. I won't even claim that Huangbo is a Zen Master. Not with any certainty, anyhow. The associations between lyrics I share and teachings are purely subjective and personal to me. But we all share this life, yes? We all share a fundamental nature, and anything can spark insight. Anyone. Go check the photos of flowers on my profile. Go look at a tree. Who knows. Maybe you'll see an odd flower petal and what has been gradual up to that moment just suddenly becomes sudden? Stranger things have happened.

To those who recognize the madness I've been talking about? I think it was Zen Master Buddha who said that good friends aren't a central part of the path, they're the whole damn thing! Anandas today understand this no more than Anandas thousands of years ago, I imagine.

To those who embrace, in ignorance of cause and condition, that reactionary resentment, impulse to yell wrong! anger, or even hatred that arises from any number of the words I wrote? You won't find the cause of it beyond that one place it is born, lives and dies in its entirety. But I'm not here because I'm concerned with who blames me for discomfort or whatever. Report me. Take my post down. I said what I came to say, can't be unsaid. Now I'm tired Ha!

Ask me anything. I ain't going to live forever. This might be your last chance to ask me about Cawtawba Grapes, Anandamayi Ma, tell me I'm wrong about everything, say something all cryptic and zenny etc...

Buddhism in the West relies on a misrepresentation of the Zen tradition by its evangelization of sitting meditation, known by Japanese Dogenists as “Zazen”.

This word, “Zazen “, is the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese word “zuochan”. In the Zen tradition, it never meant prolonged periods of sitting meditation nor the mind pacification, “Zazen is the Dharma Gate of Bliss”, doctrine.

According to Shen Hui,

”What I call sitting 坐is the state when thought is not aroused. What I now call meditation 禪is seeing into one own original nature. Therefore, I do not teach men to seat the body to stop the mind in order to enter samadhi.”

It has been common knowledge in academia that then has no relationship to Buddhism and that Japanese Buddhism ritual is an invention of the 13th century with no precedent in the Zen tradition. These are historical facts. When religionists come to this forum to misrepresent history, they are engaging in religious bigotry.

This misrepresentation of history is not tolerated to such an extent in any field of allegedly secular study that I know of. Religious studies department have not been honest with the public and have not held their peers to account for their claim.

This is why public interview is both the practice and test for claims of knowledge about Zen. People who can’t public interview, can’t claim to study Zen, and can’t claim to be enlightened without lying.

Religion makes doctrines its gate but Zen makes no gate.

When religious people complain about burnout, they’re complaining that their practice isn’t getting them something that they want. Since the Zen tradition has public interview practice, where can any burnout even take place?

It’s not like two conversations are the same or any two conversation partner connect the same. The 1200 years of Zen historical records attests to this. I’ve recently started to document again the questions that trolls can’t answer and shove those questions in their face. They aren’t willing to talk about their beliefs publicly, they aren’t even capable of keeping the social contract, a.k.a. the lay precepts. One people can’t stand up anonymously on the Internet stuff they claim to believe, how could they possibly represent a tradition that has public argumentation and uncomfortable (for some) questions at core.

Zen AMA is both a host & guest tradition, if you can't do both, you aren't Zen enlightened.

All Dharmas: O

Ask me anything!

Tonight's random number according to Google is 18. I have decided that the Zen text for this evening's verse will be the Gateless Checkpoint, anyone is welcome to propose a text for next week's ELI5, the suggestion with the greatest deviation from zero wins.

I went with Shimoniesee's translation for no particular reason.

Just “Three pounds of flax!” pops up, His words are close, and yet his heart is closer. Anyone who explains this or that, yes and no, is himself the man of yes and no.

He's commenting on Caoshan's reply that Buddha is three pounds of hemp. Wumen, in his commentary, compared Caoshan to a clam, hence his answer of "three pounds of hemp" is a pearl that had to be pried out of his shut mouth by the monks question. Zen Masters speak from the heart, like children and morons but unlike children and morons their words can kill. Explaining things in terms of existence, X is Y, or non-existence, X is not Y does not make you a man of Zen. It makes you a believer in one illusion or another.

One of the issues that we still have is people claiming to study Zen but unable to ask anyone anything or answer questions from anyone about their claims in a public forum.

The bar is as low as it can go for anyone when it is anonymous, on the Internet, and on the tiny back room of Reddit called /r/Zen.

Now in all your conduct at all times, whether active or still,

sitting or lying down, just learn to have no mind; at length you will actually attain it. It is just because you have little strength that you cannot transcend all at once. Just take three years, or five years, or even ten years, and you should gain entry and spontaneously understand. Because you cannot do so, you need to mindfully study Chan, study the Way. What has this got to do with Buddhahood? This is why it is said, “What the Realized One says is all to develop people; it is like pretending yellow leaves are gold to stop a child’s crying.” It is certainly not real; if you have actually acquired anything, you are not in our school; and what does it have to do with your fundamental essence? Therefore scripture says, “There is really nothing at all to be attained; this is called unexcelled enlightenment.” If you understand what this means, then you’ll know that the path of Buddhas and the path of devils are both off.

My notes:

This quote is from the private meetings between Huangpo and Pei Xiu. May not be applicable to ever tom dick and harry.

If by study Zen, you mean read about the lineage of Bodhidharma (allegedly) then I can't imagine there's anything that could stop you. If by study Zen you mean investigate your mind until you get enlightenment and become a Zen Master/Buddha what ever, why would you read Huangpo and still decide to do that? If you're one of those who wants to apply their teachings to your personal life, for whatever reason, then why do you think you have a mind to investigate? Also why are "studying Zen"? To be be cool? To escape suffering? To destroy your delusions? What is your vision of enlightenment and how is it different than how you are now?

Ive read a bunch of Zen texts. I know a bunch of the memes and stories. Ive heard both sides of the gradual vs sudden debate and all the rules and methods people recommend. Why would I apply any of that to my life? I don't read the words of Jesus and apply them to my life, I can still watch Jesus Christ Superstar and have a good time. Reading any other philosophy, do you apply your study to your personal life? Any other self help books you read?

Zen Master Buddha can AMA, can you?

Zen Master Buddha is famous for asking and answering questions... for example, according to Huangbo, who also asked and answered questiosns:

Q,: When Kasyapa received the seal of Buddhahood from Gautama Buddha, did he make use of words during its further transmission?

A: Yes.

Koans, historical records of AMAs

It seems odd in a forum dedicated to historical tradition where the teachers and students are defined by questions about beliefs and practices, that people making claims about Zen would refuse to answer basic questions, but here are some examples of people who can't answer questions... who actually brag about not answering questions:

https://www.reddit.com/user/Southseas_/

https://www.reddit.com/user/Express-Potential-11/

https://www.reddit.com/user/soundofears/

These "accounts" spam the forum with debunked scholarship by these nutbakers www.reddit.com/r/zen/wiki/fraudulent_texts, talk trash about sexual preferences, make trump-like claims of "literacy conspiracies", and all while refusing to discuss their alts, their religions, and their level of formal education. These kinds of accounts also link to debunked religious content from cults or 20th century religious scholars (degree in Christianity/buddhism). It's unclear how familiar these accounts even are with this material... they refuse to discuss it openly.

.

We have other users coming back to the forum, why can't they stay away if they don't want to answer questions? They repeat debunked religious claims like "koans aren't history" and "mu doesn't mean no", again, no argument, no discussion... no google translate.

Zen Master Buddha, all the Zen Masters, and even the names "monks" in Zen history all had the honesty to answer questions...

...you have to wonder what kind of background these mystery accounts and random people have... why they are so ashamed of it... and why they come to r/Zen to lie to people and harass the forum.

In a year of heightened disinformation campaigns online, these kinds of people have all the hallmarks of struggling to be healthy IRL... and they certainly NEVER met an enlightened person's questions:

No teacher, no student, no AMA... no real reddit account

85 - https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/wiki/famous_cases#wiki_dongshan.27s_capable_of_conversation

One time the Master said, "If you would experience that which transcends even the Buddha, you must first be capable of a bit of conversation."

A monk asked, "What kind of conversation is that?"

"When I am conversing, you don't hear it, Acarya," said the Master.

"Do you hear it or not, Ho-shang?" asked the monk.

"When I am not conversing, I hear it," replied the Master

No wonder they don't aren't capable of public conversation.

The Case

Wushi (an heir of Huangbo), responding to Xuefeng tapping at his door, asked, "Who is it?"

Xuefeng (who later got transmission from Deshan) replied, "A baby Fenghuang." (sacred bird that rules all other birds)

Wushi asked, "What's your purpose?" Xuefeng answered, "I'm coming to devour your old realm."

Wushi opened the door, grabbed him, and said, "Speak, speak!" As Xuefeng began to explain himself, Wushi pushed him out and shut the door.

Later, Xuefeng said to an assembly, "If I had been able to breach that old monk's realm back then, where would all you degenerate drunks have to stumble to?"

Case Interpretation and Questions:

• Calling yourself 'a baby fenghuang' is claiming that you're recently enlightened but still have things to clarify.
• I've rendered 觀 (guān) as realm. This character means both view/perspective and sanctum. It can refer to a watch tower. 'School' or 'Throne' may also have worked.
• 'I'm coming to devour...' is both threat and appeal. He's basically saying 'I'm going to succeed you'; by having a conversation where you can't hide.
• Xuefeng was mistaken. He wasn't strong enough for Wushi.
• I wonder if Xuefeng's comment is made to Wushi's congreation shortly after the event, or to his own congreation after he had attained mastery?*
• In any case, he would've overturned Wushi's teaching, and unenlightened people would no longer have something to cling to. He's boasting about the superior unfollowability of his own path.
• There's also a meaningful joke in there about how being physically denied access to Wushi's room is the same as being denied access to his mind. It's relevant because Xuefeng had come armed with words and ideas, which hadn't been tested against reality.

Miaozong's Instructional Verse

Growing feathers and wings, the baby Fenghuang,

Under the Old Realm's gate, suffers a mishap.

Suddenly left out in the cold, he remembers old debts.

He'd have to go elsewhere to find a bargain.

*(To be 'under someone's gate' is also to be a follower, student, or... parasite on them)

Verse Interpretation and Questions:

• Are the feathers and wings Xuefeng had been growing a hindrance, or not? (see: "cultivation" in the zen record).
• I think Miaozong is saying Xuefeng wasn't free because he still depended on Wushi's teachings.
• Ignoring old debts is an obstruction. Thinking of them is an obstruction. But he's got to do something.
• I wonder if all enlightenments are getting a bargain. Xuefeng's mishap wasn't caused by 'lack of cultivation', a.k.a., failure to clear up old debts. If he had pressed on 'heedless of all danger' he might've got somewhere.

Original Chinese:

烏石因雪峰扣門，石問，誰。峰云，鳳凰兒。石曰，作麼生。峰曰， 來啗老觀。石開門搊住曰，道道。峰擬議，石便托開掩卻門。峰住後 示眾云，我當時若入得老觀門，你這一隊噇酒糟漢，向甚處摸索.

養成羽翼鳳凰兒

老觀門下偶差池

冷地忽然思舊債

卻來別處討便宜

Yuanwu

Take this public case along with Yang Shan's asking a monk,

"Where have you just come from?" The monk said, "Mount Lu." Yang Shan said, "Did you visit the Five Elders Peak?" The monk said, "I didn't get there." Yang Shan said, "You never visited the mountain at all." Distinguish the black and white, and see if they are the same or if they are different. At this point, mental machinations must come to an end, and con- scious knowledge be forgotten, so that over mountains, rivers, and earth, plants, people, and animals you have no leaking at all. If you are not like this, the Ancients called that "still re- maining in the realm of surpassing wonder." Haven't you seen how Yun Men said, "Even if you realize that there is no trouble at all in the mountains, rivers, and earth, still this is a turning phrase: when you do not see any forms, this is only half the issue. You must further realize that there is a time when the whole thing is brought up, the single opening upward; only then can you sit in peace?" If you can pass through, then as before mountains are mountains, rivers are rivers; each abides in its own state, each occupies its own body. You will be like a completely blind man.

So the crux of the quote is "Distinguish the black and white, and see if they are the same or if they are different." Now does that mean what you think he means? It's not hard, literally, to distinguish back and white..they are obviously different. But wait he says "at this point, mental machinations must come to an end, and conscious knowledge be forgotten, so that over mountains, rivers, and earth, plants, people, and animals you have no leaking at all." "mental machinations must come to an end, and conscious knowledge be forgotten"??? Is that ordinary study? Does he mean what you think he means by that? Me thinking about it seems like a mental machination, and I definitely have a conscious knowledge, but does he literally mean it should be forgotten? He's instructing us, but he doesn't give instructions on how to stop and forget. Is it even possible to?

Here's Dahui with some advice on using a case while doing investigation

Those who do score wealth and status—how many can there really be? Be

willing to turn your head and brain towards investigating what is right under your own feet. The “I” who scores this wealth and status—what place does this “I” come from? And the one who right now is receiving the wealth and status—on a later day [when he dies] what place does he go to? Having real- ized that you don’t know where he comes from, and you don’t know where he goes to, you immediately become aware that your mind is stupefied. Just when [you realize that your own mind] is stupefied—and that this has noth- ing to do with anyone else—right here just keep an eye on the huatou: “A monk asked Yunmen: ‘What sort of thing is a buddha?’ Yunmen said: ‘Dried turd’ [ganshijue 乾屎橛].” Just lift this huatou [dried turd] to awareness. Suddenly when you run out of tricky maneuvers, you will awaken. By all means avoid investigating the written word in order to cite quotations and haphazardly making surmises and exegeses. Even if your exegesis attains perfect clarity and your discourse settles the matter, it’s all the “lifestyle” of a “ghost-home [in Black Mountain].”47 When the sensation of uncertainty is not smashed, birth-death goes on and on and on. If the sensation of uncertainty is smashed, then the mind of samsara [lit., “birth-death”] is cut off. If the mind of samsara is cut off, then both buddha-view and dharma-view disap- pear. If even buddha-view and dharma-view disappear, could there possibly be further production of the sentient-beings-view and the defilements-view?

I'll state for the record that I'm not haphazardly making surmises and exegeses on the case itself, but on the advice of the masters. It's patently different.

Koans are historical records

Unlike the bible, the sutras, the koran, Zen koans are historical records. Zen koans come from a unique culture in human history, a culture that maintained no religion but simultaneously persisted by the leadership of some kind of non-Buddhist, non-Christian "Enlightenment", and that did this through a network of socialist communes similar to (but not the same as) Christian and Buddhist monasteries.

1. How koans were recorded... by people in the room with the Zen Master
2. Why koans were used to explain Zen to people... because koans are what Zen Masters said.
3. What interpretation generations of Zen communities had of these koans... just historical.

Further, Zen culture passed from India into China (never made it to Japan) and Zen Masters mixed together the languages, culture references, and habits from these two countries as part of the Zen cultural experience. This is one reason why Japanese and Chinese scholars often make very obvious mistakes in translation and interpretation... besides the obvious mistakes that religious people make in interpreting other cultures (like Alan Watts, a Christian Minister, or Yamada, a Buddhist priest).

Koan/Case of the day: Measuring Tap 98.  Xiangyan’s saindhava

A monk asked Xiangyan, “What is the king asking for saindhava?” 

Xiangyan said, “Come over here.” 

ELI5 Footnote

Fortunately, the footnote clears up 99% of what confuses people about Zen culture.

Saindhava is a Sanskrit word with several meanings, including ‘salt’ and ‘horse.’  The story of the king asking for saindhava comes from the Mahaparinirvana sutra, where the king asks for saindhava on different occasions, and a wise minister discerns what the king means in each case according to the particular circumstances.  This is used to illustrate the importance of context in construing meaning, and is the reason why it is said that there is no fixed teaching. 

ELI5 Case

A monk asked Zen Master Xiangyan, "What does it mean, how is it experienced, when the King as a contextual question?"

Xinagyan said, "Come over here, and I'll give you a contextual beating".

Why is explaining koans important?

Western Mysticism (both Christian and New age) and Japanese Buddhism had a mutually beneficial collaboration in the 20th century to misrepresent Zen culture for the purposes of promoting certain Buddhist and Christian sects. This misappropriation of Zen was entirely based on treating koans as a kind of bizarre free association game that was supposed to "free" the rational mind into something akin to the dissociative trance favored by Buddhism, or the speaking in tongues holy vessel experience of Christianity.

By correcting the record, and pointing out that koans are just historical records, we can achieve a clearer understanding of Zen culture in it's own context, free of the Christian and Buddhist attempts and religious ethnocentrism that dominated and undermined religious studies in the 20th Century.

The World Honored One Points to the Ground

As the World Honored One was walking with the congregation,(Going along following the heels of

another.)

he pointed to the ground with his finger and said, "This spot is good to build a sanctuary."

(Shouldn't move earth on the head of the guardian spirit.)

Indra, Emperor of the gods, took a blade of

grass, stuck it in the ground, and said, "The sanctuary is built."(Repairs won't be easy.)

The World

Honored One smiled.(Reward and punishment are distinctly clear.)

My thoughts:

The "cases" are commonly called "koans". Some people argue that calling them Koans is just trying to keep them mysterious, and that they are public cases in a historical record and should be referred to as such. Here we have the historical record of The World Honored One, aka Buddha, aka Old Shakyamuni, aka Siddhartha Guatama, one of the first Zen Masters walking with his congregation. I imagine they did a lot of walking back in the day. As a good leader does, he decides to build a sanctuary and picks out a sweet locale in a good neighborhood with affordable land taxes. This historical record then says Indra, the Emperor of the gods, aka King of the Devas, aka King of Svarga, aka God of Weather, Universe, Lightning, Thunder, Storms, Rain, Sky, Rainbow, Cloud, Prakriti, Maya, water, River, River flows, and War becomes a menial laborer and builds the most magnificent sanctuary imaginable. Wansong says repairs won't be easy. Maybe they can borrow Thor's hammer. The Buddha smiles. Some people want to translate Mu/Wu as "no" or "has not". But what does the everyday understanding have not having have to do with the Buddha nature of Dogs? Does Zhaozhou use No the same way as we do?

Wansongs comment

When the World Honored One spread his hair to cover mud and offered flowers to

Dipankara Buddha, 'The Lamp,' that Buddha pointed to where the hair was spread and said, "A sanctuary should be built in this place." At that time an elder known as the foremost of the wise planted a marker in that spot and said, "The building of the sanctuary is finished." The gods scattered flowers and praised him for having wisdom while an ordinary man.

He says this is story is much the same as the public record in this historical record.

Discussion points:

1. What's the relationship between Buddha and Indra? Is it like a Seinfeld and Kramer situation? Or something else?

2. Zhaozhou is said to take a blade of grass and use it as a 16 foot body of gold, do you think this is the same or different as Indras, Emperor of the gods, using a blade of grass as a sanctuary?

3. When the Buddha smiles, is it the same as when Ananda smiled? Or was Buddha just laughing at Indras silly joke? Was it a joke? What's so funny?

4. Intentionally left blank.

###41. Dharma Pacifies Heart-mind (Wonderwheel)   

[Bodhidharma] faced toward the wall. The Second Ancestor stood in the snow, cut off his arm, and said, “This disciple’s heart-mind has not yet been pacified.  I beg teacher [MM 53] to pacify my heart-mind.”

[Bodhidharma] said, “Come here with your heart-mind, and I will pacify it for you.”

Ancestor said, “My searching for heart-mind is completed, and I’m not able to obtain it!”

[Bodhidharma] said, "I have finished pacifying your heart-mind for you.”

  ###Wumen says: 

The gap-toothed old Barbarian sailed on the ocean a hundred thousand li especially according to come here.  One can rightly say this is raising waves without wind.   After it was ended, he accepted and gained one particular man of the gate, and yet he was not equipped with the six roots.  Alas, Xiesanlang did not know four words.

  ###The Ode says:

You came from the West and directly pointed

Causing this business of beginning instruction.

The bothersome clamor of the jungle,

The origin of its arriving here is you.

All of the translations for this case have a few problems.

1. The sentence about the six roots is translated by basically half of the translators as a reference to Huike's injury.

2. The reference to the four words is translated by a few translators as him being "brainless" or a version of that. But basically it's a mess in all versions.

I think Wumen is saying Bodhidharma went to China specifically in order to cause trouble and the thousand year record of the conversations that ensued and people being confused is because of him.

But what's the problem? What are you confused about?

Regarding a recent post on the Wu / Mu koan, I found this interesting article by Steve Heine I think is worth sharing:

Myth One. An Expression by Joshu

Although almost all commentators attribute the word Mu to Joshu, who was said to have lived for 120 years and died near the end of the ninth century, the case is not mentioned in the earliest records of his teachings composed in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Joshu was better known at the time for many other famous koans, including a case in which his master Nansen cuts a cat in two and Joshu, in response to this violent act, puts his sandals on his head. Early Zen records do include a dialogue about the dog’s Buddha-nature involving another monk who lived a generation prior to Joshu, which concludes in a much more open-ended and ironic fashion, as well as a dialogue about the Buddha-nature in relation to an earthworm being cut in two featuring yet another disciple of Nansen.

Myth Two. Doctrine of Unapologetic Denial

While commentators generally refer to Joshu’s unapologetic denial in response to the monk’s probing query about the doctrine of the universality of ultimate reality, reading over the voluminous Zen texts from China and Japan reveals that the koan tradition holds at least a dozen versions of the case. These include: (1) the Mu response accompanied by a dialogue probing why not (there are at least two variations of this dialogue); (2) two versions of the case where the answer is positive, one of these with “Yes” (Jpn. U, Chn. You), and including a brief dialogue searching for the reason; and (3) several versions combining the positive and negative responses with or without the follow-up dialogues, and with the No answer appearing either prior or subsequent to the Yes answer.

Myth Three. Mu Must Not be Analyzed

The main interpretations suggest that the term Mu puts an abrupt end to any discourse or analysis of the meaning of the question and response. However, the classical records reveal that there are dozens or even hundreds of verse and prose commentaries in Chinese and Japanese texts. Many of these do support the head-word method, while countless others, which prefer one of the other versions of the case, tend to bypass, disagree with, or even contradict that outlook. In one example, a Zen master says simply, “Daie [Dahui] affirms No, but I affirm Yes.” It becomes clear that the head-word device is rooted in a particular era of Chinese religious and cultural history. Daie’s comments on the koan probably originally targeted an audience of lay disciples whom he accumulated during his abbacy stints in both the remote countryside, while he was exiled for political reasons for over fifteen years of his career, and the capital, when he regained the favor of the authorities during the final period of his life. However, other important texts from the era, such as the Record of Serenity (Chn. Congrong lu, Jpn. Shoyoroku) in addition to the “Bussho” or “Buddha-nature” fascicle of Dogen’s Shobogenzo, both of which are available in several English translations, reveal multiple possibilities for interpreting one or more versions of the case, especially the rendition that has both positive and negative responses as well as additional dialogues about each of these alternatives.

Myth Four. Conceptual Entanglements are Wrong

In light of the tremendous degree of variation and variability in koan commentaries, we must ask what has led to many interpreters insisting that the true message of the case is absolute nothingness, which might result in a reification of nihilism, while others argue that the point of the case is the relativity of affirmation and negation, which might result in a antinomianism. It seems clear that the full implications are not revealed by translations/interpretations focusing exclusively on the emphatic “No” response, which is sometimes given with an exclamation point or a transliteration of the Sino-Japanese original for stress (as in “Mu!” or “無!”). Instead of remaining bound to one view or the other, the conceptual entanglements indicated by contradictory or paradoxical versions of the koan can be continually explored without seeking a firm conclusion.

The reason for apparent misconceptions is the extent to which one specific view of the case has been portrayed in numerous writings as the only valid approach by leading contemporary scholar-practitioners who represent three different schools — Korean Zen, the Rinzai (Chn. Linji) school of China and Taiwan, and the Japanese Soto sect. The standpoint they endorse focuses exclusively on appropriating the best-known version of the case from the Gateless Gate (Chn. Wumenguan, Jpn. Mumonkan) kōan collection of 1229. The common approach espoused by three different advocates emphasizes a particular understanding of the role of the koan based on the “head-word” or “critical phrase” method developed by the prominent twelfth century Chinese master, Daie. This approach takes the “Mu” response in a non-literal way to express a transcendental negation that becomes the topic of an intensive contemplative experience, during which any and all thoughts or uses of reason and words are to be cut off and discarded for good rather than investigated for their expressive nuances and ramifications. Yet, historical studies demonstrate quite persuasively that an overemphasis on this single approach to one version of the kōan is somewhat misleading.

.

This is part of an investigation Heine published, it can be found here.

What are your opinions on this? Do you think these historical investigations could change your understanding of the koan?

#Post(s) in Question

Post:  https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/comments/1ewdwyv/overthrowing_buddhas_teaching/

Link to episode: https://sites.libsyn.com/407831/8-26-2024-gatelesss-40-baizhang-guishan-and-the-purified-bottle

Link to all episodes: https://sites.libsyn.com/407831

ewk translation

Master Guishan, initially joined the assembly at Baizhang [Mountain, under Master Baizhang]. Baizhang, intending to choose the master for the great [temple at] Guishan [Mountain], then invited the head seat to address the assembly, saying, "Those who are exceptional may come forward."

Baizhang then picked up a Purified Bottle, placed it on the ground, and posed the question, "You must not call this a Purified Bottle1. What do you call it?"

The head seat then said, "It cannot be called a block of wood." Baizhang then asked Guishan.

Guishan then toppled the purified bottle and left.

Baizhang laughed and said, "The first seat has lost to Guishan," and thus he named him the founder.

Wumen says,

"Guishan's moment of courage, yet he could not leap out of Baizhang's circle. Upon examination, [the yoke] is found weighty, not light."

"Why is it that, deaf [unable to hear the instructions for the contest, because of the head wrap], he could free his bound head2 and lift an iron yoke [of service on Mount Guishan]?"

The verse says,

"Knocked down, the strainer3 and the wooden ladle together,

with one thrust under the bright sun, nothing obstructs;

Baizhang's heavy barrier could not hold [him] back,

With a flick of his foot, [because he expounded the dharma, there were] Buddhas [everywhere] like hemp."

Buymeacoffee, so I'm not accused of going it alone:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/ewkrzen

#What did we end up talking about?

What's the water bottle.

What's the longer version.

What's the reason for Wumen shortening it.

What's the head scarf.

What the deal with a franchise.

#You can be on the podcast! Use a pseudonym! Nobody cares!

Add a comment if there is a post you want somebody to get interviewed about, or you agree to be interviewed. We are now using libsyn, so you don't even have to show your face. You just get a link to an audio call.