I'm using the easier to type version of Nansen's name going forward.

Nansen came to speak to the monks. The master [Joshu is the student in these early ones btw] asked, "bright or dark."

Nansen returned to his room.

According to my translator notes, "bright or dark" is a phrase used commonly in Tang China to refer to differentiation or sameness. Joshu is asking him to speak on IT. The One Mind. All that is. Demanding the other speak on it is really the point of dharma combat.

Joshu asks, is all of reality the same - a unified whole - or differentiated - a myriad of stuff. I think the best way to read these is to try to come up with your own answer. Drop any doctrine you already believe sit for 5 minutes and investigate how you would respond, relying on your own experience. Is what is right now here in front of you a unified whole or a myriad of things? Dahui seems to think that it is useful to bring up these questions and answers in the midst of events. While in the act of washing the dishes, throwing peanuts at birds, eating a meal, writing an essay, etc is the experience a unified whole or differentiation?

Without fixing on any view or opinion on it, I can say that there seems to be one unified reality that I operate in. There appear to be a multiplicity of sensations and phenomena in this reality. And these sensations are all of reality outside of myself. Is myself one or differentiation. There is one experience now. But there are different elements of that experience. Can there be a border found between one element and another?

While I'm writing this for an example, the investigation itself isn't really verbal. And it is all provisional.

Anyway:

It appears to us, and to Joshu, as we read on, that Nansen's leaving the monks was admitting defeat.

The master left the hall and said, "At one question of mine that old priest was forced into silence and could not answer."

The Head monk said, "Don't say that he was silent. It is only that you didn't understand. "
The master struck him [with a stick] and said, "Actually this blow should have been given to that old fool Nansen himself."

Joshu is a troll. Some of these cases are a riot.

I'd be willing to hear the argument that Nansen won, but I don't think the Head monk knows what he's talking about. He isn't a zen master, and nobody preserved his name in history as a zen master. The whole point of this is the remind us to investigate bright or dark.

8. Our original Buddha-Nature is, in highest truth, devoid of any atom of objectivity.

Last time we talked about how it is different than our limited, personal, subjective minds. Here Huangbo is negating its opposite, objectivity.

Neither subjective, nor objective, what is it? While this question isn't, that I know of, a classical case, I find it a great topic for investigation. For myself at least, subjective and objective seem to be illusions. Can you locate a subjective self that exists without any objective reality to witness? Can an objective reality exist without beings there to witness it? Right in front of you, where is the boundary between subjective and objective, between self and world? Is there a boundary?

(you don't need to answer, just look)

It is void, omnipresent, silent, pure; it is glorious and mysterious peaceful joy- and that is all. Enter deeply into it by awaking to it yourself. That which is before you is it, in all its fullness, utterly complete. There is naught beside.

Omnipresent. It is right here, right now before you, even in your darkest state, even when you are in a "dharma low tide," and feel totally apocalyptic over worldly concerns about the news, even when you you're totally confused and deluded and none of this shit makes sense and is hopeless gobbledegook. It is still, right there.

Even if you go through all the stages of a Bodhisattva's progress towards Buddhahood, one by one; when at last, in a single flash, you attain to full realization, you will only be realizing the Buddha-Nature which has been with you all the time; and by all the fore going stages you will have added to it nothing at all.

Makes me think of the hero's journey of Joseph Campbell. One leaves home, goes on an adventure and finishes the journey by returning home.

But for zen masters this is nonsense. Just realize you're home and forgo the adventure.

"We are plain quiet folk and have no use for adventures." - Bilbo Baggins had it right before those pesky dwarves showed up.

You will come to look upon those aeons of work and achieve ment as no better than unreal actions performed in a dream. That is why the Tathagata said: 'I truly attained nothing from complete, unexcelled Enlightenment. Had there been anything attained, Dipamkara Buddha would not have made the prophecy concerning me.'

When you wake up from a dream, you are in a different realm, and the things that happened in the dream don't impact the world you are in.

A good way to look at meritorious activity and actions working towards enlightenment.

Anyone know anything about Dipankara and why attainment would invalidate his prophecy?

He also said: 'This Dharma is absolutely without distinctions, neither high nor low, and its name is Bodhi.' It is pure Mind, which is the source of everything and which, whether appearing as sentient beings or as Buddhas, as the rivers and mountains of the world which has form, as that which is formless, or as penetrating the whole universe, is absolutely without distinctions, there being no such entities as self ness and otherness.

I'm getting a feel for Huangbo's structure for these little sections. He makes a point, provides some explication, and then reiterates the point at the end. A really great teaching strategy. He again, here, reiterates that as the Mind is outside of conception, distinction, etc, self and other, subject and object are false doctrine.

I suppose my controversial question here is, is Huangbo a nondualist? From my understanding of what nonduality is, it seems that way.

Here's your jam

Going to start a read along for Green's translation Recorded Sayings of ZM Joshu sporadically.

Didn't get very far today. A lot of this isn't based on any canon. I'm not making an argument. These may be very loose, personal, more like a diary than an essay or exposition. If that isn't your cuppa, avoid these posts, it isn't for you, otherwise, feel free to share any thoughts you have about the text or my commentary on it. I'm not a zen master and I'm not doing this for anyone benefit or anything.

Lectures, Questions and Answers pt 1

The master asked Nan-ch'uan (Nansen), "What is the Way?"

Nan-ch'uan said, "Ordinary mind is the Way."

Phew, a lot to unpack here.

I'm interpreting Ordinary mind as the mind that operates without additional opinions and concepts being added. Such a mind will not avoid acting conceptually but there will not be opinions about the concepts.

One may think, how can I go about life not having opinions or forming concepts? No understanding of the science of physics will help you catch a ball flying at your face.

But isn't this anti-intellectual? Not really. Physicist will absolutely learn and teach physics as conditions arise that make it necessary for them to do so. And a zen master physicist won't add a bunch of opinions to his job because that's just extra work.

Ordinary mind is just doing what is to be done without making a big deal about it. Just live your life. Be normal.

The master said, "Then may I direct myself towards it or not?"

Nan-ch'uan said, "To seek [it] is to deviate [from it]."

The ordinary mind doesn't seek the Way. The ordinary mind doesn't seek anything, I would gather. Seeking is part of having an opinion. You think one thing is preferable to another, and seek it. In this case, you think enlightenment is preferable to delusion, so in seeking it, you are falling into error.

The master said, "If I do not seek, how can I know about the Way?"

Nan-chu'an said, "The Way does not belong to knowing or not knowing. To know is to have a concept; to not know is to be ignorant. If you truly realize the Way of no doubt, it is just like the sky: wide open vast emptiness. How can you say 'yes' or 'no' to it.

The way is prior to the conceptual realm. Prior to affirmation or negation. It simply is. Even that is saying to much. To say it "is" places it in the realm of existence of non-existence. A conceptual negation or affirmation.

At these words the master had sudden enlightenment. His mind became like the clear moon.

No comment, just including it for the sake of having the entire conversation.

the other day I was talking to a friend about sharing and sacrifice. he mentioned he finds it difficult to share certain things with people, for example food. On probing, two interesting details emerged:

a) he finds it harder to share when he doesn't trust that the person he is sharing with will appreciate the thing as much as he does

b) he finds it harder to share when the thing in question is scarce in some way, e.g. expensive or not readily available where we live.

What I ended up saying to him was: It's easier to make sacrifices when we are confident that our sacrifice will create signficant value for others. We can't guarantee that every relationship in our lives will be well balanced, but we can still find joy in them. what makes it hard is when it feels like your effort or sacrifice is disappearing into a black hole.

for my friend, the doubt is that the person he is sharing with is present enough to receive the full potential enjoyment of the thing being shared. and that creates a pressure to treat certain aspects of his relationships in a more transactional way, measuring the give and take in the hope of arriving at fairness.

when I gave him my perspective, I was trying to do two things. firstly, reassure him that he is not stingy or misery per se, and his feelings are not totally idiosyncratic to him. secondly, to reframe the problem in terms of control. it's not really about him missing out on a larger portion of some nice food, it's about not knowing what the experience is like for the other person. it's about being comfortable with that not knowing.

i think parts of my argument are correct, but I also think I have run afoul of zen master sengcan by indulging the concept of 'creating value.' sengcan says that 'better' and 'worse' are false categories. if i was more aligned with sengcan, perhaps I would've told my friend that even a drunk guy wolfing down his lovingly prepared meal without a second thought is an equally good outcome to it being eaten with care and gratitude by someone who loves food.

who here can clear this up? who claims to see what sengcan sees?

The title today comes from this. Hopefully it is funny. If I'm getting too crass with my silly titles, comment and let me know and I'll tone it down for next time.

With about a week of these under our belts, time for a little housekeeping before we get started. Not sure if I mentioned it before, but these are in the CHUN CHOU RECORD part of the Blofeld translation. User u/rangeractual so kindly posted the Chinese of our last installment, so anyone who wants the original text can check here and can probably follow along somehow or another. Although it seems there are plenty of damn good complaints on the translation, such an analysis isn't my point here, so I'm gonna continue to use Blofelds translation.

Anyone who is into translate-y stuff, I encourage your comments. I'm here to learn and the comments so far have been great.

As a final preface, this Chun Chou Record has around 5 weeks worth of material. I'm soliciting requests for a next text to work through.

7. The building up of good and evil both involve attach ment to form.2 Those who, being attached to form, do evil have to undergo various incarnations unnecessarily; while those who, being attached to form, do good, subject them selves to toil and privation equally to no purpose. In either case it is better to achieve sudden self-realization and to grasp the fundamental Dharma.

Sinners, rejoice. Saints, get off your high horse. It's all for naught. Attachment to concepts of good and evil are a trap.

This Dharma is Mind, ,beyond which there IS no Dharma; and this Mind is the Dharma, beyond which there IS no mind.

Dharma is one of those words that seems to only be able to be translated imperfectly to English, and seems to have a new meaning every time I turn around. From my understanding, when capitalized, it refers to the teachings of the Buddha, but if anyone else wants to problematize the translation, I'd love to read what you have to say.

Mind in itself is not mind, yet neither is it no-mind. To say that Mind is no-mind implies something existent.

We are talking about two things, it seems Mind (capitalized) and mind (lowercase). The former appears to be this Absolute beyond concept that Huangbo keeps mentioning. The latter seems to be our personal, individual, limited minds.

This capitalized Mind is not equal to our personalized mind. But it isn't a lack of that mind either, because this lack would be discussing something that exists. This Mind exists outside of the realms of existence or non-existence. There are no categories which apply, even being or non-being.

Let there be a silent understanding and no more, away with all thinking and explaining. Then we may say that the Way of Words has been cut off and movements of the mind eliminated. This Mind is the pure Buddha-Source inherent in all men.

When the conceptual mind ceases, the pure Buddha (Tathāgatagarbha?) shows itself. it has always been with us, just obscured by thoughts.

All wriggling beings possessed of sentient life and all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas are of this one substance and do not differ. Differences arise from wrong-thinking only and lead to the creation of all kinds of karma.1

Huangbo reiterates his initial point. Both good and bad karma are a mistake. They get you stuck in the mire of, well, karma. Eliminate these concepts or opinions. Be free of them.

Here's your jam for today

Every system of thought has non-negotiables.

Physics, for example requires people to accept that observation is the final word on understanding the movement of objects.

Buddhism and Christianity, as another example, require people to accept that there is supernatural wisdom obtained by special people.

Zen non-negotiables

1. Sudden Enlightenment
2. No method or practice or gate that enlightenment
3. That enlightenment is typified by nothing other than freedom; not compliance and not supernatural knowledge.

That's a deal breaker Tracy

For zazan, worshipers and Buddhists, no practice means that Zazen and the eightfold path are out.

For Christians and new agers, supernatural knowledge is out. So there's no Jesus and there's no matrix.

testing testing 123

If a person is free then they're free all the time. You can't corner them. You can't trap them and you can't trick them. They're always free.

That's what Dharma interviews AKA AMA AKA Dharma battles AKA koans are all about.

Public interviews with truly free people demonstrating their freedom all day everyday anytime any place.

It makes perfect sense then that people who weren't free would try to avoid that test.

Enter the AMA deniers from a.church or religious basement near you.

Miazong, [commenting in verse on the case of Mazu leaving Baizhang deaf for three days after shouting and his later instruction on this to his assembly],

"As soon as the vital spot is struck, the poison is smeared on the drum"

"The complete strategies of [giving and taking life] shake up past and present"

"Not till after a snow do you understand the integrity of the cypress;"

"Only when things get difficult, do you see the mind of a manly man"

For people not acquainted with the Zen subculture's vocabulary some of this instruction may come off as confusing, especially if one has never read a book of Zen instruction.

That's OK.

The part that's relevant to a generation of males epitomized by increasing mental health problems, lagging levels of education compared to women, involvement with fringe religious and political movements, and lack of romantic or friendly relationships with women are the last two lines.

In Christianity, Buddhism, Trumpism, and [ideological movement of the day] there are behaviors, roles, and attitudes to be followed based off of one's biological sex. In those belief-systems, if you don't follow those gender-roles you aren't a "real" man or a "real" woman.

Zen is not like that.

Zen doesn't have a faith-based gender-role-conforming component to it.

It has a lot of men and women full of fiery indignation overturning the beliefs of their fore-fathers and fore-mothers and refusing to typecast themselves into roles for the sake of conformity.

The two parts of that which most Western men are struggling with are:

1. The 5 Lay Precepts

2. Public Interviewing

For Miazong (and every other Zen Master), what you claim about yourself, your understanding, and your attainment is worthless compared to the testing you are willing to undergo. A life without running to the escape-hatch of lying or drugging can be a "heavy snow" for a lot of people; but it's the bare minimum for engagement with the real test of Zen: Unscripted Public-Facing Q/A Sessions

The weird part of the trolling-griefing-brigading is that it's full of people who want to pretend to be big manly enlightened cypress trees...behind the closed doors of their church but come here only to choke whenever asked questions about their practice.

Do they even believe that themselves?

Why would anyone want to imitate the sincerity of others?

Read the previous case, Case 7 - Zhaozhou's Wash Your Bowl here.

Good news, everyone! u/ewk has graciously accepted my invitation to invite me to his podcast so let's sit tight while he figures out his schedule and gets back to me regarding when this mumontous meeting will occur. (edit - we have set a date, I will be sure to link to the episode after he releases it!)

In the meantime, let's dig into Case 8.

Case 8 - The Master Cartwright Makes a Carriage

Master Yueyan asked a monk, “Xizhong [the master Cartwright] made carriages [with wheels] with a hundred spokes. We roll up the two hubs and eliminate the axle: does this explain transcendence or worldly wisdom?” 

Wumen said,

If you can understand directly, your eyes are like comets, your mental workings like a flash of lightning.

Verse

Where the wheel of mental workings turns,

Even those who comprehend are still deluded.

The four directions, up and down,

South, north, east, west.

The Chinese:

八　奚仲造車 

月庵和尚問僧、奚仲造車一百輻。拈却兩頭、去却輻、明甚麼邊事。

無門曰、若也直下明得、眼、似流星、機、如掣電。

 頌曰

機輪轉處      

達者猶迷      

四維上下      

南北東西      

I don't love Cleary's translation. Another version I saw was this:

Gettan Oshõ said, "Keichû, the first wheelmaker, made a cart whose wheels had a hundred spokes.

Now, suppose you took a cart and removed both the wheels and the axle. What would you have?"

Wumen said: If anyone can directly master this topic, his eye will be like a shooting star, his spirit like a flash of lightning.

Wumen's Verse

When the spiritual wheels turn,

Even the master fails to follow them.

They travel in all directions, above and below,

North, south, east, and west.

GPB's Commentary:

I think the second one is more straight to the point.

If you take off the wheels of a car, where you goin'? Hey wait, does this have something to do with that "Great Vehicle" thing?

But if you aren't going anywhere, why did Master Yungai Zhi say he was on a swift horse, circling the polar mountain looking for ant tracks?

And what are ant tracks? If they're anything like Moose Tracks... yum. 🍨

Seems contradictory to me.

Guess I'll have to sit and think some more. Maybe it'll come to me. 🧘‍♀️

🛎️🦇's Verse

Buckle up,

it's the Magic carpet ride

Hawaiian rollercoaster,

here comes the tide.

(To be continued...)

6. This Mind is no mind of conceptual thought and It IS completely detached from form. So Buddhas and sentient beings do not differ at all. If you can only rid yourselves of conceptual thought, you will have accomplished everything. But if you students of the Way do not rid yourselves of conceptual thought in a flash, even though you strive for aeon after aeon, you will never accomplish it.

Buddhas and sentient beings do not differ at all? So they are the same?

Huangbo wants us to eliminate conceptual thought "in a flash." It certainly isn't gradual. A flash is instantaneous. I think he is again drawing attention how it is a shift in understanding. Like the famous optical illusion of the bird and the duck. You see it one way and then you see it the other. There is no gradually changing.

Enmeshed in the meritorious practices of the Three Vehicles, you will be unable to attain Enlightenment. Nevertheless, the realization of the One Mind may come after a shorter or a longer period. There are those who, upon hearing this teaching, rid themselves of conceptual thought in a flash. There are others who do this after following through the Ten Beliefs, the Ten Stages, the Ten Activities and the Ten Bestowals of Merit. Yet others accomplish it after passing through the Ten Stages of a Bodhisattva's Progress. But whether they transcend conceptual thought by a longer or a shorter way, the result is a state of BEING: there is no pious practising and no action of realizing

Is Huangbo allowing for a path of practice? The language says that there is a way to transcend conceptual thought with a longer or a shorter way.

Is the resultant state of BEING (wonder why the translator capitalized? I don't know if ancient Chinese has capitals), simply being? It is interesting language, and I wonder how much is Blofeld). It is something we are, not something we do or see or practice.

That there is nothing which can be attained is not idle talk; it is the truth. Moreover, whether you accomplish your aim in a single flash of thought or after going through the Ten Stages of a Bodhisattva's Progress, the achievement will be the same; for this state of being admits of no degrees, so the latter method merely entails aeons of unnecessary suffering and toiJ.1

Since there is no actual progress or change in IT, how you get to IT doesn't matter. So go the easy way.

Here's your jam

A monk asked, "What is your intention?" Then master said, "There is no method to it."

Not a lot of meat on this one. What is the least delusional deduction from this?

Did Joshu have an intention at that moment that didn't need a method?

Was his intention to enlighten the monk and that had no method? (Idk, hitting people seems like methodology to me, wait, did Joshu hit people?) (Is hitting spontaneous or a tool? Or both? That's a tough question.)

Or was he so focused he didn't want to weave anything in his brain?

Edit: it is possible that they were both doing something: cooking, building something, an intention or method could be about anything. All in all, I settle on I don't know.

Read the previous case, Case 6 - The World Honored One Holds Up a Flower here.

Hey fellow cave-dwellers. For whatever reason this has been the hardest case for me yet. And when I say hardest I mean I had no idea what to write about all day yesterday. So I decided to take a break and sleep on it and see what came up today. I was thinking about it this morning and I realized that there's someone who could help me. u/ewk! He himself told me to check out this case not too long ago.

When you get back from your trip Ewk, would you have me on your podcast to discuss this case? 🙏🏻

I found this translation on the Classical Chinese subreddit, I like it better than Cleary's so that's what I'm using today:

Case 7 - Zhaozhou's "Wash Your Bowl"

A monk, telling Zhaozhou he was newly admitted into the monastery, requested that the Master give him instruction. Zhaozhou asked the monk if he had eaten his gruel or not, to which he replied he had. Zhaozhou told him to wash his bowl. The monk became conscious1 .

Wumen said: Zhaozhou opens his mouth, exposing his guts2 , revealing his heart. This monk is not really listening, [and so] takes a bell for a jar.

[The] eulogy said:

Only because [it is] extremely clear,

it slows the search for attainment3 .

Foresee that the lamp is fire,

[and the] rice has long been cooked.

...

^(1) (given the character used, I feel "become conscious" is representative of the possibilities suggested by 省 xǐng; ie. [gaining the ability to] scrutinize, examine, reflect, discern, introspect etc.)

^(2) (膽 dǎn can also mean gallbladder, or audacity, daring, courage etc.)

^(3) (lit. 所得 apalabdhi or attainment, realization, understanding/observation)

The Chinese:

趙州因僧問。某甲乍入叢林。乞師指示。州云。喫粥了也未。僧云。喫粥了也。州云。洗鉢盂去。其僧有省。

無門曰。趙州開口見膽。露出心肝者僧聽事不真。喚鐘作甕。

頌曰。

只為分明極
翻令所得遲
早知燈是火
飯熟已多時

GPB's Commentary:

Well. Joshu opened up his mouth (began speaking) and showed his heart/guts/innermost thoughts.

This is as far as I go.

Now there's a mental block.

Just to reiterate, I haven't planned this study out. I look ahead a few cases at a time, just to see what's there but I write these things off the cuff. I'm along for the ride just like you are. 🐎

🛎️🦇's Verse

Ring a ding ding

Calling the cavalry

to unravel

the ring

Go to the next case in the series, Case 8 - The Master Cartwright Makes a Carriage>

Zen Masters demand honesty

Aside from the five lay precepts, which are a requirement for every Zen novice, here is an example of how honesty is fundamental to Zen:

Going along with the multitude of conditions, there is no obstruction;

from Zhang Cho's poem of insight

Conditions, everything that happens in the world, are to be gone along with. Lying about reality, denying it, that's all for people who can't face reality.

Trolls aren't Griefers

Trolls are people who say silly stupid stuff, like Zhaozhou asked Nanquan, "How do I follow the Way?"

Nanquan said, "ur butt follows the Way".

Trolls tell these kinds of jokes in any/every forum.

Griefers, on the other hand, are bigots who hate a specific group. Their comments are frequently only funny to people who share their bigotry. Griefers aren't general in their targets, they only hate on that group and the people in it.

Practical jokers are trolls. The KKK are griefers.

Griefer steps forward

r/Zen has almost no trolls, and is vote brigaded by griefers because the mod team shuts down almost everything else.

Yesterday a griefer admitted what he was doing, giving us a rare chance to get from the horse's mouth (ass?) what motivates griefers and how they justify denying the reality Zen Masters point towards. Griefers deny reality, and when anyone affirms that reality, the griefer is justified by their religious hate in harassing those people.

Examples:

1. YOU are the only person I have baited

• This is targeted harassment. When you target a person, rather than a belief or idea or argument, that's griefing.

3. You don't give credence to anything relating to Zen that might come from Japan.

• The faith-based belief that there is "Japanese ZEn" is based on No argument, No evidence. Nothing presented here or any other secular forum.
• This is a reference to the griefer's faith in Japanese Buddhism, which has been widely debunked.
  • Both Japanese fake lineages were debunked: Hakuin's "secret manual" translated, and Dogen's fraud exposed by Bielefeldt.

4. You call people call people sexual predators

• No evidence has been presented that I've ever called someone a sex predator that wasn't a sex predator.
• Japanese Buddhism sent four Zazen masters to the US in the 1900's. Three were sex predators. Shunryu was worse, a predator-by-proxy; he claimed a sex predator was his "dharma heir".
  • www.reddit.com/r/zen/wiki/sexpredators

5. You use confrontation

• Zen is a confrontation culture. Japanese Buddhism is just like Christianity: a subservience/tolerance culture.
• Once again, NO ARGUMENT is given about confrontation generally.

6. You claim to be a Master

• No evidence of any kind.
• In fact, I've said that only Masters can recognize Masters, and that to everyone else it doesn't matter.
• Why is this a complaint? Because I have UNDENIABLE AUTHORITY based on the reality of the high school book report.
  • www.reddit.com//r/zen/wiki/getstarted

Why the hate?

This religiously bigoted griefer does not contribute regularly to religious studies forums. For him, religious is an excuse for bigotry.

Just like Buddhists lynching the 2nd Zen Patriarch for saying stuff they didn't like, griefers are interested in the same kind of censorship.

They do not want to talk about reality and direct experience.

If you've been following along with my read along of Huangbo's "Transmission of Mind" you may have noticed that for Huangbo, eliminating conceptual thought is a good thing, and a way to realize the absolute, which is nonconceptual. Yet other texts in the translated zen canon provide an apparent paradox.

In Dahui's letters from the swamp, collected in "Swampland Flowers," he quotes in letter 47 an "ancient worthy" (anyone know his source?) as saying

Fools remove objects but don't obliterate mind, the wise wipe out mind without removing objects.

He also, in the same letter, warns against people who

...try to freeze their minds and gather in their attention, taking things and returning them to emptiness, shutting their eyes, hiding their eyes; if a thought starts up, they immediately demolish it; as soon as the slightest conception arises, they immediately press it down.

...false teachers of silent illumination just consider wordlessness the ultimate principle

So how do we eliminate conceptual thought without falling into these errors?

Is this actually a paradox?

The best resolution I can find from Dahui is in the same letter when he says:

Just comprehend nothingness in the midst of things, unconcern amidst concerns: when seeing forms and hearing sounds, don't act blind and deaf.

He seems to be saying allow everything to be as it is, just view emptiness or nothingness in things, concepts, emotions, etc. Still, in this formulation we haven't "eliminated" concepts and things.

What do you think? Is this how to resolve the paradox? Are we dealing with translation issues here, or something else?

5. Manjusri represents fundamental law and Samanta bhadra, activity.

Apparently Manjusri is the bodhisattva of prajna/wisdom. Anyone who knows more about the bodhisattvas or the term prajna, please comment. My understanding is prajna is the kind of wisdom that comes from looking at reality or existence without coloration. Seeing thngs as they are. A non conceptual viewing.

Samantabhadra is associated with action.

By the former is meant the law of the real and unbounded void, and by the latter the inexhaustible activities beyond the sphere of form.

Manjusri's wisdom is the law of the void that we keep hearing about. The unconditioned. Samantabhadra is the activity that is not in our realm of form in which we see objects as objects.

I'm guessing these are all personifications of things or dharmas or whatever rather than actual beings, but this is perhaps comes from my innate distaste for anything supernatural.

Avalokitesvara represents boundless compassion; Mahasthama, great wisdom, and Vimalakirti, spotless name.

He says here these bodhisattvas "represent" these things, lending credence to my prior understanding that this are not literal beings. Let's see where he is going with this pantheon.

Spotless refers to the real nature of things, while name means form; yet form is really one with real nature, hence the combined term 'spotless name'.

Form is emptiness, emptiness form. "Spotless" would be referring to the incorruptible Absolute or One Mind that he keeps discussing. Yet to name it is to give it a form, so spotless name is a paradox of sorts. Perhaps this paradox is inherent in existence.

Something to meditate on.

All the qualities typified by the great Bodhisattvas are inherent in men and are not to be separated from the One Mind. Awake to it, and it is there.

All of these virtues of the great bodhisattvas are inherent in us. Huangbo again wants us to know we don't need to change anything or get anywhere, we just need to recognize what is already here. This is a big deal for Huangbo, and seems a part of every section we've read.

You students of the Way who do not awake to this in your own minds, and who are attached to appearances or who seek for something objective outside your own minds, have all turned your backs on the Way.

JUST STOP IT. STOP SEEKING!

The sands of the Ganges! The Buddha said of these sands: 'If all the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas with Indra and all the gods walk across them, the sands do not rejoice; and, if oxen, sheep, reptiles and insects tread upon them, the sands are not angered. For jewels and perfumes they have no longing, and for the stinking filth of manure and urine they have no loathing.'

Your true nature is unaffected by anything. No need to feel joy if you feel blessed or moral or virtuous, and no need to feel down if you are spat upon. These stuff doesn't affect the true, Absolute that is your true nature.

Here's your jam for today.

This is a really hard part for people from Western culture, particularly those without physical travel experience or college level humanities.

This lack of experience/training is one of the reasons why we don't talk about this much in this forum.

The other reason being that Western Buddhists and new agers have very specific ideas about the duality faith-based doctrine and they can't link it to Zen and they don't care what Zen master say. Whether it's the matrix or philosophical relativism, duality is a critical doctrine to a lot of religious groups that make claims about Zen.

The key thing to understand here is the overriding principle that Zen Masters reject absolutely conceptual truth. The eye cannot see itself and mind cannot be described or bound by concepts.

Zen Masters are aggressively materialistic, but that materialism is driven by experience and not by conceptualizations of materialism.

So they are Cartesian when it is experientially valid, but their cartesianism never substitutes for experience.

Examples

I've read all this stuff but how about everybody else? Tell me what they think of examples and maybe count our examples are?

This background might be useful for people who don't understand why Zen Masters don't teach Dualism: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/w4s5vy/where_does_the_idea_of_non_duality_in_buddhism/

Studying on our own can be tricky. It’s easy to confuse intellectual understanding with genuine insight—or to catch a glimpse and think we’ve got it, only to later realize we were mistaken.

Q: If “there’s never been a single thing,” can we speak of phenomena as non-existent?

A: “‘Non-existent’ is just as wrong as its opposite. Bodhi means having no concept of existence or non-existence.” [Huangbo]

It’s one thing to understand this concept intellectually, but how can we recognize when our understanding has not moved from "knowing about" to "knowing"?

I love stories of monks from other traditions meeting with Zen teachers and being tested. One story involves a Pure Land monk named Ippen and a Zen teacher, Kakushin*, who had received transmission from Wumen.

Kakushin posed a question to Ippen as a statement: “The arising of thought is realization.” Ippen replied with this poem:

When I utter the Name

There is neither Buddha nor I;
There is only the voicing
Of Namu-amida-butsu.

Kakushin said this is “not yet thoroughgoing,” not yet penetrating all the way through. Where there is voicing, discriminative thinking still remains. Ippen immediately followed with another poem:

When I utter the Name

There is neither Buddha nor I;
Namu-amida-butsu,
Namu-amida-butsu.

This time, Kakushin certified Ippen's recognition.

What do you think is the difference between the two answers?

What’s it like to get a glimpse of this but not break all the way through? How do we recognize when this is happening to us?

Master Dazhu said:

'Purity of conduct, speech, and mind is called Buddha appearing in the world. Impurity of conduct, speech, and mind is called Buddha becoming extinct.' A good message - the ancient's temporary expedient opens up an entryway for you.

Once you have found an entryway, you then must find a way of exit. When you climb a mountain, you should reach the peak; when you dive into an ocean, you should reach the bottom. If you climb a mountain but don't reach the peak, you won't know how immense the universe is. If you dive into an ocean but don't reach the bottom you won't know how deep the abyss is.

Once you know immensity and depth, you kick over the four oceans with one kick, slap down the polar mountain with one slap, then go back home with your hands free, unrecognized by anyone: sparrows twitter, crows caw, among the cedar trees. [TotEoTT #13]

What does "kicking over the four oceans" or "slapping down the polar mountain" look like in modern terms?

How do we recognize when we're stuck?

---------------------------------------------------------

*FOOTNOTE: Shinchi Kakushin (1207–1298) practiced Zen under Gyōyū from 1239 to 1241. When he had his head shaved, he was given the Buddhist name “Kakushin” which means “Enlightened Mind.” After Gyoyu’s death, Kakushin decided that he needed to go to China to better understand Zen. There he had hoped to study with Mujun Shiban, but Shiban had recently died. Instead, Kakushin became a student of Wumen Huikai. When Kakushin presented himself before Wumen, the master challenged him by saying, “There is no gate into my temple. Where did you enter?”“I entered through no-gate (wu-men),” Kakushin retorted.“And what is your name?” “My name is Enlightened Mind [Kakushin]!”

Wumen was so pleased with this exchange that he accepted Kakushin as a student. Under Wumen's direction, Kakushin was introduced to koan practice. He achieved awakening after only six months in China, and won the admiration of his teacher. When it was time for him to return to Japan, Mumon presented him with a hand-written copy of the Mumonkan. It was the first copy to come to Japan.

4. Making offerings to all the Buddhas of the universe is not equal to making offerings to one follower of the Way who has eliminated conceptual thought. Why? Because such a one forms no concepts whatever.

Imma need some help with this one. You lost me Hb. I get it, eliminating conceptual thought is what we want. But I thought paramitas and offerings and whatever provided no merit. Why would an offering to someone who has eliminated conceptual thought be superior rather than equally worthless than other offerings? And saying that the reason this is superior is because such a person forms no thoughts seems to be circular logic.

The substance of the Absolute is inwardly like wood or stone, in that it is motionless, and outwardly like the void, in that it is with out bounds or obstructions.

If we have an inward and an outward, don't we have a duality? Is this Absolute (identical to the One Mind, I presume) a state that we are in if successful? I would think so. How else would an "inward" and "outward" make sense or be known?

So are we to (already?) be motionless internally, and boundless externally?

It is neither subjective nor objective, has no specific location, is formless, and cannot vanish.

Not subjective and objective, I get. Similar to "Dasein" or "being there" for Heideggerians.

But how can it have no "specific" location? Is the term "specific" important here, in that it may have a general location everywhere? Or is location meaningless when it comes to this Absolute?

But next we find it is "formless." Anything existing in space would have a form. It would have to to occupy space. So this thing is not something that exists conventionally in our space.

It also cannot vanish. If it cannot vanish, it is ever present, even right here right now in front of you.

Those who hasten towards it dare not enter, fearing to hurtle down through the void with nothing to cling to or to stay their fall. So they look to the brink and retreat. This refers to all those who seek such a goal through cognition.

Cognition is a retreat from the brink, caused by fear.

Thus, those who seek the goal through cognition are like the fur (many), while those who obtain intuitive knowledge of the Way are like the horns (few).1

This requires honesty and accountability with oneself. A type of vigilance and mindfulness or metacognition-and honest look into the actions of one's mind. Are you of the many or the few? If you're one of the many, become one of the few, or find something different to do with your time.

Here's your song

I knew some Zen because of my interest in East Asian culture, and little by little I started looking for things. I think the first completely Zen thing I read was an anthology of Ikkyu poems and stories, Zen stories and so on. novel of the golden pavilion by Yukio Mishima aroused a certain interest in me, since the protagonist is a novice and the koan of Nansen and the cat appears

Read the last case, Case 5 - Xiangyan’s Up in a Tree here.

Well guys, I got myself up in a pickle tree in that last case. Ya see, I had the wrong interpretation and I needed help to get down, kind of like a cat.🐈‍⬛ But you've gotta know when to let go and accept help from your friends.

Accepting...friends...hmmm....

Case 6. The World Honored One Holds Up a Flower

In ancient times, at an assembly on Spirit Mountain, the World Honored One [the Buddha] held up a flower and showed it to those gathered there.

Everyone in the assembly was silent at that moment. Only the Venerable Kasyapa cracked a slight smile.

The World Honored One said, “I have the treasury of the Eye of the Correct Dharma, the wondrous mind of nirvana, the real formless subtle gate to Reality, the special transmission outside the scriptural teachings that does not establish texts [as sacred], I entrust it to Mahakasyapa.”

Wumen said,

If golden-faced Gautama had had no one by his side, he would have been forcing free men down into serfdom and selling dog meat advertised as mutton, and the assembly would have thought it was marvelous. If everyone in the assembly had smiled, how would [the Buddha] have passed on the treasury of the Eye of the Correct Dharma? If Kasyapa had not smiled, how would [the Buddha] have passed on the treasury of the Eye of the Correct Dharma?

If you say there is transmission of the treasury of the Eye of the Correct Dharma, then old Golden-Face was lying to the ordinary people in the village lanes. If you say there is no transmission, then why did he approve only Kasyapa? 

Verse

Holding up a flower,

The tail already shows.

Kasyapa cracks a smile,

Everyone else is helpless.

The Chinese:

六　世尊拈花

世尊、昔、在靈山會上拈花示衆。是時、衆皆默然。惟迦葉者破顔微笑。世尊云、吾有正方眼藏、涅槃妙心、實相無相、微妙法門、不立文字、教外別傳、付囑摩訶迦葉。

無門曰、黄面瞿曇、傍若無人。壓良爲賤、縣羊頭賣狗肉。將謂、多少奇特。

只如當時大衆都笑、正方眼藏、作麼生傳。

設使迦葉不笑、正方眼藏又作麼生傳。

若道正方眼藏有傳授、黄面老子、誑□閭閻。

若道無傳授、爲甚麼獨許迦葉。

頌曰

拈起花來      

尾巴已露      

迦葉破顔    

人天罔措    

Please allow me to work backwards a little bit today.

My vague and half-hearted study of the Zen record told me that dragons are figures to respect. At first I thought an enlightened Master was to be considered a dragon. And maybe sometimes they are described in such a way. But this morning I was looking at some more quotes from the record and I found these two:

The Empty Valley Collection #47: A Dragon Lodging in a Phoenix Nest

Jiashan was chief cook at Guishan's. Guishan asked, "What vegetables are we going to eat today?" Jiashan said, "Two years share one spring." Guishan said, "Do a good job, Tiger." Jiashan said, "A dragon is lodging in a phoenix nest."

Treasury of the Eye of True Teaching #461

Master Huanglong Xin said to an assembly, There are no phenomena outside mind; thus things can be understood. There is no mind outside phenomena; thus mind can be comprehended. Comprehensible, understandable, mind and phenomena fulfill the aim. Fulfill the aim, and everything is the aim; make mind complete, and every state of mind is mindless. Since there is no mind in mind, you go directly to the source. When you find the source, when you manifest a great body, it fills space; and when you manifest a small body, not an atom is established. How is it when no an atom is established? (silence) One drop of ink in two places completes a dragon.

Wumen's verse breaks it down for us.

Verse

Holding up a flower,

The tail already shows.

Kasyapa cracks a smile,

Everyone else is helpless.

An action is taken to connect. But it's more(or less) than that. When you strip away everything you know about yourself, you're "nothing" and "no one". There's no place for dust to cling. Nowhere for your beard to hang. We're ALL One Mind. You just might not've realized it yet. It's not that anything is being transmitted, it's that the "line" has been cleared. The unity is unobscured by delusion. It's like saying a dragon's tongue is transmitting the dragon to the tail. It's just all dragon. There is nothing else.

When you find "nobody", you can't help but to smile.

Because after all,

it takes two.

🛎️🦇's Verse

Scaled tail to tongue

Not even a line

Shake off your beards

And all is sublime

_____________________________________________________________

Go to the next case in the series, Case 7, Zhaozhou's Wash Your Bowl >

Last installment had some difficulty getting posted and ended up with 0 engagement. So here's a link if it slipped the radar because it was a day old when it went up. Thank to the mods for helping when reddit immediately struck me down.

https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/comments/1h8iq6o/pt_2_of_the_transmission_electric_huangbogaloo/

Anyway, on to pt 3.

3. 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.

Voids have no attributes, but contain things that move through them. The things may have attributes, but the void does not. Similar to mind. Experiences move through it, it can alternate dark and light, good and evil, hungry and full, etc, etc, but it is unchanged by these experiences.

And again, as it is unchanged by anything, this is the perfection at the core of everything. Like Huangbo said before, there is nothing to change, and trying to change to achieve something means you don't understand the point.

This is great news. It is there and ever present even in our most confused, deluded immoral state. We don't need a state of peace, or even clarity. We just need to look.

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. There is only the One Mind and not a particle of anything else on which to lay hold, for this Mind is the Buddha.

What is the highest meaning of the holy truths? Empty, without holiness. Fathoming a duality, a better or worst, holy or unholy is to fall into the trap of duality and concepts and opinions. Imagining a holy state that must be achieved keeps you from understanding. Look now!

If you students of the Way do not awake to this Mind substance, you will overlay MIind wIth conceptual thought, you will seek the Buddha outsIde yourselves, and Youl wIll remain attached to forms, pious practices and so on, all of which are harmful and not at all the way to supreme knowledge .

The truth is so simple that sometimes Huangbo can get a little redundant. He keeps hammering into your head: stop seeking, stop conceptualizing, stop thinking some practices or changes are needed to get somewhere. Just stop coloring things with concepts and you will have true knowledge.

As a footnote, I again think the word "substance" may be misleading in this translation, but if anyone is more familiar with the original texts or language, please let me know.

Here's the vibe of the day

I have been interested in Zen for a long time but here in Spain it is difficult for me to find many books on the subject, especially translations of classical Chinese texts.

One day during Xuanjian's travels he came across an old woman selling steamed dumplings on the side of the road. Stopping for a rest, he set down his heavy pack and asked the woman for some dumplings. The old woman pointed to the bundles of manuscripts tied to his pack and asked, “Venerable, what is that you're carrying?”

Xuanjian said, “They're commentaries on a scripture.”
The woman asked, “Which scripture are they about?”
Xuanjian said, “The Diamond Sutra.”
The woman said, “I have a question for you. If you can answer, I'll give you some dumplings for free. But if you can't answer, you'll have to find something elsewhere. Okay?”
Xuanjian said, “Go ahead and ask.”
The woman said, “In the Diamond Sutra it says that the mind of the past can't be grasped, the mind of the future can't be grasped, and the mind of the present can't be grasped, either. So with what mind is the venerable asking for dumplings?”
Xuanjian was speechless.

You go about your day and you find this post eventually, you read it and maybe decide to comment, with what mind do you do that?

The mind of the past presents past causes, the mind of the future, future results, the mind of the present, current situations. If you try to grasp any of those you end up in either of them. Without grasping any of them, you cannot say a single thing about it, and yet here we are.

The air is cold in winter,

Grass is soft to the bare feet.

Birds sing in spring,

The smell of fresh rain.

With which mind are you going to decide whether to reply to this post or not? Can you show it to me?

Read the previous case in the series, Case 4 - The Barbarian Has No Beard here.

In the last case I asked why Wooly Willy came from the West. How fitting (you will come to find out)! In fact, so far every case has dovetailed beautifully into the next. Almost like they're all connected. Huh...

Well little doggies, today I'm going to shed some light on why ol' Bodhidharma crossed the road. So hang on to your hats and glasses, this here's the wildest ride in the wilderness! 🤠

Case 5. Xiangyan’s Up in a Tree

Master Xiangyan said, “It’s like being a man up in a tree, holding a branch between his teeth with his hands and feet not touching the tree branches. Beneath the tree there is someone who asks about the meaning of Bodhidharma coming from the West. If he does not reply, he spurns the questioner’s question. If he does reply, he perishes [by falling]. At such a moment, how should he answer?”

Wumen said,

Even if you have eloquence pouring out like a waterfall, it is totally useless [here]. Even if you can preach the whole great canon of teachings, this won’t work either. If you can succeed in answering here, you bring back to life what before [for you] was a dead road, and you put to death what before was your life’s path. If you cannot answer, wait for the future and ask Maitreya.

Verse

Xiangyan is a real phony;

His evil poison is endless.

Making the mouths of patch-robed monks go mute,

His whole body is squirting demon eyes.

Here's the Chinese:

五　香嚴上樹

香嚴和尚云、如人上樹、口啣樹枝、手不攀枝、脚不踏樹。樹下有人問西來意、不對即違他所問、若對又喪身失命。正恁麼時、作麼生對。

無門曰、縱有懸河之辨、惣用不著。説得一大藏教、亦用不著。若向者裏對得著、活却從前死路頭、死却從前活路頭。其或未然、直待當來問彌勒。

頌曰

香嚴眞杜撰 

惡毒無盡限 

唖却納僧口 

通身迸鬼眼 

__________________

GPB's Commentary:

First of all:

Verse

Xiangyan is a real phony;

His evil poison is endless.

Making the mouths of patch-robed monks go mute,

His whole body is squirting demon eyes.

Goodness!!

Let's imagine for a second that you're in this predicament. First of all, how did you get up in a tree, chomping on a branch? Does it even matter? Maybe, maybe not.

What's more important than words in such a situation? Action!

Climb down! Are your legs broken? No. Are your arms tied? No. When you're in a tough spot, you've gotta help yourself before you can help others. You have to assess the situation and figure out what to do.

By climbing down, you are showing the person below how you get yourself out of a tough spot.

But it's more than that. It's also showing them that its even POSSIBLE to in the first place!

Why did Bodhidharma come from the West?

He was taking action. Why? To show people how to help themselves. 無

Hyah! 🐎

🛎️🦇's Verse

Up in a tree

Branch in your mouth

Founder went East

To steer you from South

______________________________

Go to Case 6 - The World Honored One Holds Up a Flower >

Just as Foyan said:

Would you like to attain a state of mind where you seek nothing? Just do not conceive all sorts of opinions and views. This nonseeking does not mean blanking out and ignoring everything.In everyday life, twenty-four hours a day, when there is unclarity in the immediate situation it is generally because the opinionated mind is grasping and rejecting. How can you get to know the nondiscriminatory mind then?

Let's face it: Zen is just more interesting, practical, and rewarding than Taoism magikal alchemy, Zazen thought-policing, 10 commandments or Buddhist 8fp obedience.

First of all because we all know that relijoyless stuff doesn't work: it contributes to dishonesty, disillusionment, and disconnection. That's why churches can't get young educated people. That's why Reddit forums are either "acceptence bombing" or subtle hate fests.

Second of all, because Zen Masters like Foyan prove over and over that CONCEPTIAL ATTACHMENT IS A CHURCH FAIL:

1. Taoism is all about conceptual attachment:

   • Believe in the mysterious Water Way
   • Believe in magikal alchemical wafer transformation

2. Zazen prayer thought policing is PRIMARILY CONCEPTIONAL SEEKING

   • Believe Zazen prayer as good "concept vacuum" and seek it lots and lots
   • Believe thoughts you don't like should be shunned from consciousness through avoidance

3. Buddhism and Christianity are both BELIEVE SUPERNATURAL AUTHORITY and OBEYING CONCEPTS THEY TELL U

Foyan says don't obsess over concepts

Foyan: Want to not be attached to concepts?

Foyan: Don't believe what people tell you. Don't conceive their ideas.

Foyan: Don't seek blanking out on your thoughts/feelings/life by thought-policing yourself in Zazen or 8fp Buddhist obedience, etc.

Foyan: Don't have an opinionated mind that is grasping and rejecting the good and bad ideas religious Zazen Taoist Christian people try to put on you.

Why burden yourself with faith in that stuff?

Just answer honestly.

To recap our earlier installments: stop trying to conceptualize. It (One Mind, Only Mind, i don't care what you call it tbqh) is beyond all that.

2. As to performing the six paramitas1 and vast numbers of similar practices, or gaining merits as countless as the sands of the Ganges, since you are fundamentally complete in every respect, you should not try to supplement that perfection by such meaningless practices. When there is occasion for them, perform them; and, when the occasion is passed, remain quiescent.

You don't need to change anything about yourself or engage in any practices or self-improvement. Meditate or read a book or exercise or go to school and get a degree or go to church, or be strict with the precepts or commandments or whatever it is required for you to do to be a normal functioning adult, but none of this is helpful to or necessary for zen. You already, have everything you need, whether you're the worlds dumbest person and kick dogs for fun or you're an iq 190 doctor who spends his time giving free healthcare to impoverished children.

If you are not absolutely convinced that the Mind is the Buddha, and if you are attached to forms, practices and meritorious performances, your way of thinking is false and quite incompatible with the Way. The Mind IS the Buddha, nor are there any other Buddhas or any other mind.

Seeking to change or self improve oneself shows you don't really understand the way, or at least are still unconvinced of its truth. You must be convinced that the mind is Buddha.

But how to be convinced? Will reading and contemplating text do it? Does it require some focused inquiry until it is seen for oneself? Or maybe it is different for everyone.

It is bright and spotless as the void, having no form or appearance whatever. To make use of your minds to think conceptually is to leave the substance and attach yourselves to form.

I think this may be a sloppy translation. "Substance" in western philosophy is the material of a specific thing. Form would be something like a blueprint. But even these definitions vary depending on the school of Western philosophy. I don't think Huangbo is saying it is an error to leave the "substance" in this sense.

The Ever-Existent Buddha is not a Buddha of form or attachment. To practise the six paramitas and a myriad similar practices with the intention of becoming a Buddha thereby is to advance by stages, , but the Ever-Existent Buddha is not a Buddha of stages.

This made me think of one of my kids who, when he's not paying attention, has no taste buds. He hates olives. Loves grapes. But he can't tell the difference if you just mix them together in a bowl and he eats while he watches tv. But tell him that there are olives in the bowl, and he can tell each and every one.

I think this is like the realization that Huangbo advocates. It doesn't happen in stages. You believe what is being said, and your view of the olives and grapes of reality changes. You don't get a grape that tastes a little more olive-y. You just get it all of a sudden.

Only awake to the One Mind, and there is nothing what soever to be attained. This is the REAL Buddha. The Buddha and all sentient beings are the One Mind and nothing else.

Kind of a reiteration. It always has been olives in with the grapes. Nothing needed to change except what you're paying attention to.

Here's your song of the day. Later on

Hey everybody, I recorded this almost 3 years ago but my account was still new at the time and it was auto-removed. I told u/Surupamaerl2 that I would rectify that and I never did. Until now!

Below is my original post:

___________________

Link to my audio.

Since Suru is back, I decided to share this really quite silly reading of his post, which tickled my funny bone into oblivion.

I laughed even harder the first time I read it, so imagine my recording with about 217% more laughter and you’ll have an idea.

I got all creative with the poem parts, so….please enjoy. And I apologize for any crappy sound engineering, I am an amateur.

I do not apologize for the laughing.

I think it’s funny.

I spent a lot of time trapped in my head; overthinking everything, wanting to understand it all, doubting everything, only to end up submerged in a sea of uncertainty, paralyzed by endless possibilities.

From Zen, I’ve learned that I shouldn’t let myself be dragged by thoughts that come and go, which almost never hold an absolute truth. Every now and then, it is necessary to cut off the incessant inner dialogue and look outward to experience life as it is, without filtering it through opinions. It's not always necessary to have rational explanations for everything in order to be at peace with yourself. And even when you have them, they won’t be enough, because they will always lead to more questions. But no one can know everything, so when it would be enough? Of course, that doesn't mean you shouldn't think about things at all! Extremes are always dangerous.

There are other ways of navigating reality beyond the purely rational, such as following intuition, instinct, those indescribable feelings that come from within, listening to yourself in a non-discriminatory way, following the events of life that lead you along a path, and even what we call "common sense," which many times we overlook. There will always be some mystery in life, and I don’t mean the supernatural, I mean the unknown and the uncertain, and by acknowledging it, I am witnessing how beautiful and powerful it truly is.

Just as Foyan in his lectures said:

Would you like to attain a state of mind where you seek nothing? Just do not conceive all sorts of opinions and views. This nonseeking does not mean blanking out and ignoring everything. In everyday life, twenty-four hours a day, when there is unclarity in the immediate situation it is generally because the opinionated mind is grasping and rejecting. How can you get to know the nondiscriminatory mind then?

Read the previous case, Case 3 - Judi Holds Up a Finger in the series here.

In my last introduction I mentioned not needing a beard to see things. Here I am again, talking about a lack of beard! Here's a short and sweet case for all of you stubbly Buddhas. Here's my soundtrack for this one.

Case 4. The Barbarian Has No Beard

Huoyan said, “Why does the Indian barbarian have no beard?” [Why do enlightened teachers, and the enlightened true identity within us, have no fixed, predictable characteristics by which we may recognize them?]

(GBP Here...I agree with ewk's comment below: The only reasonable addition to the translation is a footnote that the foreign barbarian is likely a reference to Bodidharma.)

Wumen said,

Study must be real study. Awakening must be real awakening. For this, you must see the barbarian in person. But when I say “see in person,” it has already become dualistic.

Verse

In front of fools,

We must not speak of dreams.

“The barbarian has no beard”

Adds confusion to clear wakefulness.

Here's the Chinese:

四　胡子無髭

或庵曰、西天胡子、因甚無髭。

無門曰、參須實參、悟須實悟。者箇胡子、直須親見一回始得。説親見、早成兩箇。

頌曰

癡人面前      

不可説夢     

胡子髭無   

惺惺添□

_________________________

GPB's commentary:

This one is pretty straightforward if you ask me. Indian barbarian=Bodhidharma, the founding patriarch of Zen/Chan in China.

Huoyan is using Bodhidharma as a stand-in for Buddha nature. Why does Buddha Nature not have any fixed characteristics? Well, because there's nothing there for anything to stick to. How can something stick to nothing? Anything that appears to be there can fall away with the slightest tilt.

Does anybody remember/know of those old-school toys with the guy's face with the metal shavings? Wooly Willy was his name. Keeping the board flat and using a magnetic pen, from outside the plastic covering you dragged these little metal shavings onto Willy's face and gave him funny hair or a beard or anything you could think of. His look was always temporary though because as soon as you picked up the board, the metal shavings would fall away. There was nothing to keep them in place.

Why did Wooly Willy come from the west?

Wumen said,

Study must be real study. Awakening must be real awakening. For this, you must see the barbarian in person. But when I say “see in person,” it has already become dualistic.

You must see Buddha Nature in person. But there's no person to see, this is speaking of dreams in front of fools. It's raising waves where there is no wind.

When Wumen says study must be real study and awakening must be real awakening, he means that enlightenment isn't something you memorize. It's something you live.

Insights come from living. Wisdom comes from experience. Judi cut off the attendant's finger so that he would WAKE UP and realize that the finger wasn't the teaching.

Do the thing!

🛎️🦇's Verse

You don't need any clippers

Not one dab of shaving cream

Put on your robe and slippers

And wake up from your dream

(To be continued...)

See the previous post in the series, Case 2, Baizhang's Wild Fox here.

You don't have to have a red beard to be able to anticipate a "What Does the Fox Say" reference in a post about foxes! Heck, you don't need any beard at all! 😊 That's me flipping someone off (respectfully).

Hey, speaking of flipping people off! Just kidding, we're talking about a different finger today. 👆🏻

(Ding ding ding!! It has been brought to my attention that "boy" is inaccurate. All usage of the word "boy" has been corrected. Please forgive me and my ignorance and read the case with the truthful terms. It is crucial.)

Case 3. Judi Holds Up a Finger

Whenever he was questioned, Master Judi would just hold up a finger.

Later one of the young men who may or may not have been a servant but probably was only an attendant, but not JUST a lowly attendant, one of seniority [in the congregation] was asked by an outsider, “What is the essential teaching of your master? ” The maybe-young senior attendant also held up a finger.

When Judi heard about this, he took a knife and cut off the possibly young senior attendant's finger. As the youngish seniorly attendant ran out howling in pain, Judi called him back. When the youthful attendant of seniority looked back, Judi just held up a finger. The budding professional attendant was abruptly enlightened.

When Judi was about to die, he told the congregation, “I got Tianlong’s one-finger Zen and used it my whole life without exhausting it.” As his words ended, he died.

Wumen said,

Where Judi and the boy-who-wasn't were enlightened was not on the finger. If you can see into this, then Tianlong, Judi, the potentially juvenile non-servant attendant, and you yourself are all strung through on the same string.

Verse

Judi made a fool out of old Tianlong.

Holding up the sharp blade alone to test a silly little attendant,

The great spirit lifts his hand without much ado

And splits apart the million layers of Flower Mountain.

The Chinese (as always, please correct me if I messed it up somehow):

三　倶胝堅指

倶胝和尚、凡有詰問、唯擧一指。後有童子。因外人問、和尚説何法要。童子亦堅指頭。胝聞遂以刃斷其指。童子、負痛號哭而去。胝復召之。 童子廻首。 胝却　堅起指。童子忽然領悟。胝將順世、謂衆曰、吾得天龍一指頭禪、一生受用不盡。言訖示滅。

無門曰、倶胝並童子悟處、不在指頭上。若向者裏見得、天龍同倶胝並童子興自己一串穿却。　

頌曰

倶胝鈍置老天龍    

利刃單提勘小童    

巨靈擡手無多子  

分破華山千万重   

_____________________

GPB's Commentary:

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...unless you're a Zen Master.

Over and over again they tell you to find out for yourself. Don't take their word for it.

Yunmen said this to a monk:

Whether you are an innocent beginner or seasoned adept, you must show some spirit! Don't vainly memorize [other people's] sayings: a little bit of reality is better than a lot of illusion. [Otherwise,] you'll just go on deceiving yourself.

What's more real than having your finger sliced off when you're not expecting it?

Wumen said,

Where Judi and the boy-who-wasn't were enlightened was not on the finger. If you can see into this, then Tianlong, Judi, the attendant, and you yourself are all strung through on the same string.

It's not the finger. It's not the finger. Do not imitate. But didn't Judi imitate Tianlong?

Verse

Judi made a fool out of old Tianlong.

How did Judi make a fool out of his teacher?

When Judi was about to die, he told the congregation, “I got Tianlong’s one-finger Zen and used it my whole life without exhausting it.” As his words ended, he died.

Judi was enlightened by Tianlong's one-finger Zen but then continued using it. Tianlong should have stopped him from doing that, that's why Wumen called him a fool. He wasn't imitating Tianlong, however he was using the same device to show his own students.

If you've ever worked in a corporate setting, maybe you've heard the tale of the experiment with 5 monkeys with the bananas and the ladder.

Basically, five monkeys were put in a cage with a ladder and bananas at the top. Every time a monkey went to get the bananas, all of them would be sprayed with cold water. Eventually the monkeys started beating ones that tried to go up the ladder in order to avoid being sprayed. The researches decided to replace one of the monkeys with a new one. The new monkey arrived and seeing the bananas, wanted to go up the ladder to get them! Before he could climb, the veteran monkeys beat the sh*t out of him. He learned to not go up the ladder, even though he didn't know about the cold water punishment.

Eventually ALL of the monkeys are replaced with new monkeys and they end up beating each other for trying to go up the ladder for "no" reason. Their beatings become habitual. Cyclical. It's monkey hell. Bananas in reach, but constant suffering instead.

Like the wild fox from Case 2, we have to break our habits so that we may see for ourselves.

The young(?) attendant held up his finger habitually. When Judi cut off the his finger, he was able to SEE what the finger was communicating, not the finger itself. He was able to see what wasn't there.

Get rid of your habits so you can see.

Climb that ladder, get the bananas. There are no guards at the Unclosed Gate.

🍒🦇's Verse

I shout

You shout

We all shout

For banana splits

⛰️🍌⛰️

P.S. Ewk had a post about this case here recently and there was some really helpful discussion about some of the translation/interpretation, especially from InfinityOracle. You should really go check it out.

P.P.S. Forgive my insolence. I have been playing with fire. 🙇‍♀️

_______________________________________________

Go to Case 4 - The Barbarian Has No Beard >

People are scared to empty their minds fearing that they will be engulfed by the void. What they don't realize is that their own mind is the void.

Looking for the one Mind, you grasp at objects and think that you are onto something. Coming back from your job, you get home, sit and contemplate this one Mind. You expect to get a definite, substantial answer one day "this is it!", you expect a complete resolution of things.

You get all your bones and joints of this body, you place them before you, and then you wait for the enlightenment of the ancients to strike you like a lighting bolt would strike an unsuspecting tree. You are here waiting for this Mind to fill up the emptiness you see all around.

What if you're the one filling up the emptiness? What if you're that which tries to have something definite rather than nothing?

When the light was blown out, Deshan was suddenly enlightened and said:

All these abstract doctrines are like a single hair in vast emptiness. All the affairs of the world are like a drop of water in a boundless ocean.”

Abstract doctrines, Zen cases, Zen discussions, all of that lead you nowhere. Sure, these discussions and theories can clear things out for a while, but I am sure you eventually come back to the same fundamental question "What is all of this?". This question still tries to fill up the emptiness, the vast, boundless ocean.

What does this emptiness look like? Well, as soon as you reason about it, it looks like something. Trying to grasp at that only creates further conceptions of it. What is it that is here?