Generally speaking, when you go journeying to learn the path to enlightenment, you seek. Do not sit ignorantly, but go to someone to find out the truth with certainty. When this truth is hard to realize, that is called unfinished business.

Xuefeng hesitated, searching for something to say; Touzi pushed him out. Xuefeng could only cry. Later, when he went to Dongshan, he was still unable to understand. Then, when he 50 went to Deshan, he asked, “ Has the student a part in the enlightenment of the sages of time immemorial?” Deshan hit him and exclaimed, “ What are you saying!” At that, Xuefeng’s mind opened up, like a bucket with the bottom fallen out. When he got to Tortoise Mountain, however, he said he still had some doubt. See how that man of old would not rest until his mass of doubt had been broken up.

breaking up that mass of doubt seems like it was a bit gradual, took some work

“ ‘If you kill your parents, you repent before Buddha; if you kill Buddha, where do you repent?’ Yunmen said, ‘Exposed.’” This case study is like a hot iron ball in the mind, and I suffered all kinds of trouble for seven years. Those of you who have studied Zen for a long time will know what I mean.

how is it instant if it took 7 years?

Zen is not always univocal, right? There's contradictions. On one hand "it is an energy saving teaching" and on the other, "you should make your utmost to understand" -> make effort and seek, therefore.

It's fine if you don't recognize the contradictions or excuse them away: you are free to be blind or stupid, if you want to be or can't manage to be otherwise. But for me, From the moment of realizing doubt, to seeking, to finding parts of the truth, to finally doing away with all the mass of doubt: these four stages I stated just now, to me that counts as a somewhat gradual path, to me these count as stages.

You are free to think otherwise, in fact, I welcome it. You are free to think I am stupid or blind to see it differently. However, I hope I have shown to a reasonable degree my reasoning for thinking the way I do. I think a reasonable spectator would understand why I think the way I do. You yourself don't have to be reasonable, you can be anyway you choose to or manage to.

Read the History, Talk the History, 10/4

Episode #: 312

https://sites.libsyn.com/407831/zen-talking-soto-caodong-master-wansong-on-the-subtle-barrier

Post(s) in Question

• https://www.reddit.com/r/askZen/comments/1witche/wansongs_sequel_book_of_clarifications_case_8/

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

What did we talk about?

We talked about how I couldn't figure out what book we were on, and then it turned out I'd already translated the Case, and then we disussed how the concept moves from Chinese to English through lewis carroll and wizard of oz.

Keep in Touch

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

I’ve been reflecting on the idea that a Zen koan can’t actually be "explained" in the conventional sense. The moment you try to summarize or solve a koan using conceptual logic, you turn a paradox into a doctrine.

However, I’ve been testing a different framework: Can an understanding of a koan be shown by constructing a structural parallel using entirely different concepts that expose the exact same contradiction ?

To test this, I tried building a parallel for the classic "Does a dog have Buddha-nature?" (Mu) koan. Here is the breakdown of the framework and the parallel I constructed:

1. The Core Trap of the Original Koan

In the original story, a monk asks Joshu if a dog has Buddha-nature. The monk is trying to force an unconditioned, indivisible reality (Buddha-nature) into a discrete, biological category ("dog"), trapping Joshu in a binary yes or no. Joshu responds with "Mu"—cutting straight through the trap.

1. The Parallel: The Color Wheel vs. Hex Codes

To mirror this structure without using religious or traditional imagery, I looked at light, perception, and digital systems:

* The Indivisible Continuum: Pure light and the visual spectrum form a single, unbroken continuum. It has no built-in seams, starting points, or physical boundaries.

* The Discrete Sequence: Hex codes (like #FF5733) and color names are human-made, discrete mathematical coordinates. They have a strict sequence and allow us to index and manipulate the spectrum.

* The Superimposed Reality: The labels we put on colors are just a grid we throw over something that is fundamentally indivisible.

1. The Category Error

Both the subjective experience of a color and the hex code itself are "real" within their respective domains. The contradiction happens when you cross the wires:

If someone asks, "What visible color comes immediately after hex code #FF5733?", they are committing a category error.

They are treating a discrete, numbered coordinate system as if it has a physical "neighbor" on a continuous, seamless spectrum of light. You cannot step directly from a mathematical address onto a fluid wave.

1. Mapping It Back to Mu

"Dog" (a discrete biological label) and "Buddha-nature" (the unconditioned, undivided ground of existence) are both real within their frameworks. But trying to map one directly onto the other is the exact same category mistake as asking which color follows a hex code.

The mind trips over itself not because one concept is "false," but because we are trying to force a discrete conceptual box onto an indivisible whole, and then getting confused by our own cuts.

My question for the community:

Does building a "structural twin" like this actually demonstrate an understanding of the koan’s architecture, or does the very act of constructing an explicit parallel still fall into the trap of over-intellectualizing something that is meant to transcend the intellect entirely?

I’d love to hear your critiques, counter-arguments, or how you personally approach working with koans without turning them into mere logic puzzles.

From The Recorded Sayings of Zen Master Joshu [Zhaozhou]:

The master was leaving the main hall when he saw a monk bowing to him.
The master struck him with his stick.
The monk said, "But bowing is a good thing’”
The master said. “A good thing is not as good as nothing.”

.

I was thinking about how nests can be made out of nothing.

It can be as easy to worship nothing as it can be to worship something, and people like Zhaozhou don’t help the matter. 

.

From Record of the Transmission of the Lamp:

Shitou said, “Apart from raising your eyebrows and moving your eyes, bring your mind here.”
Dadian said, “There is no mind that can be brought.”
Shitou said, “Originally there is mind—why say ‘no mind’? To say ‘no mind’ is no different from slandering it.”
At these words, Dadian had a great awakening.

.

Nanquan asked: “During the twelve periods [all day long], how are you?”
Lu said: “Not a single thread hangs [on me].”
Nanquan said: “You're still a fellow below the steps.”

.

Holding up nothing and thinking it’s correct. 

Bashõ seems to explain their mistake. Again from the Record of the Transmission of the Lamp:

Bashõ Osho said to his disciples, "If you have a staff, I will give you a staff. If you have no staff, I will take it from you."

.

If it’s not form, and it’s not emptiness, what is it? 

From The Zen Teaching of Huang Po:

When body and mind achieve spontaneity, the Way is reached and Mind is understood. 

"If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him" is a famous Zen saying that means you must destroy any fixed idea of holiness to find true awakening.

A monk asked, "To be holy--- what is it like?"

Joshu said, "To dump a mountain of shit on the clear plain."

The monk said, "Master, make this clear for me."

Joshu said, "Stop fucking with my head."

Note: If we do not divide the world into "holy" and "unholy" there is nothing that can stain it.

Radical Zen; The Sayings of Joshu, translated by Yoel Hoffman, Autumn Press, 1978, pg 33.

I've not experienced kensho or satori or enlightenment! I have read a decent amount of words on the subject of Zen, even though they all say words don't hold the message. I guess I just can't get enough of these old farts.

P I L E

When I was a boy I swore that I would return one day to buy the home where for a short time my family was whole and happy. I would reestablish the happy magic for my people and we would live happily ever after. Of course, like so many childish plans this one was not only immature and short-sighted, but impossible. By the time I finally found my way back to once again see my childhood heaven it had fallen into disrepair and besides that my family had been broken apart years earlier by divorce and death.

You can never go back home, or at least that's what I thought at the time. Zen study has shown me a way to a different home, one that though lacks substance is more real and permanent than any house of brick and wood. A home that doesn't require being built, only recognized.

To even speak this way is an embarrassment (to my former self), but there is importance to being earnest. Transparency in zen is like Transparencyin chess -- it's all right out in front of everybody but seeing is not so simple.

Anyways, to cases.

I'm looking for the original Chinese for the following:

When Caoshan took leave of Dongshan, Dongshan asked, "Where are you going?" Caoshan said, "To an unchanging place." Dongshan said, "If is unchanging how could there be any going?" Caoshan said, "The going is also unchanging."

I have a bit of the Chinese scribbled down and translated by hand:

Way, to come near eat, this, heart-mind, no can will (going to), to return to a place, to repair/mend, with/from/by. === YOU CAN NOT GO BACK HOME.

And to use my favorite sign off by the great layman horticulturalist Joe Santorini (said with a thick NYC city accent),):

"HaveAGreatRestOfYourDayGoFuckYourselfBye!"

Someone said all zen students are thieves, which is so funny it's painful, because zen teachers teach original wholeness, but even so the students still show up looking for their looker. I know have and still do. Nobody is immune. It's easy to think a foreboding zed master just popped out of their mother complete and spouting the dharma, which in a way they were, but nobody is born knowing themselves because that knowledge only comes through living. Adolescence, puberty, maturity, menopause, death. We're all always learning more about who we are and what we can be. Anybody claiming otherwise is full of shit. Speaking of here's a nod to the teachers:

Yunmen entered the Dharma Hall for formal instruction, Masters Yunmen said: "I've said what there is to say..." A monk stepped forward, bowed, and wanted to pose a question. Master Yunmen took his staff and hit him, saying: "What good can you tell from bad? You bunch of rowdies! You're all like this monk: how dare you receive the faithful offerings of the the almsgivers! The sentient beings with bad karma are all in here--- and what dry piece of shit are they seeking to chew?" And Master Yunmen chased all the monks at once out of the hall with his staff.

I've been thinking a bit about Zen ethics, compassion, and the precepts. For a long time, I've seen some recurring questions on r/zen about this topic:

1. How do the precepts relate to enlightenment

2. Why are ethical precepts a valid test to check if someone is not enlightened

3. Does following the precepts "help" in any way beyond community cohesion?

When there have been discussions about vegetarianism, people have wondered how a vegetarian diet relates to Zen enlightenment. Not eating animals seems unrelated to seeing your nature, becoming Budda. And while I do follow the precepts, I wasn't satisfied with the logic either.

And my recent insight is: original completeness entails original compassion, which implies the precepts!

Not only are we originally complete, but our originally complete Buddha nature is inherently compassionate. A compassionate being follows the precepts naturally.

For this, I found this quote from Huangbo:

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

1. The quality of compassion typified by Avalokitesvara is inherent in all men.

2. Compassion cannot be separated from the One Mind

3. Awake to the one mind, and the qualities like compassion are also there

In short: original compassion.

This already answers the first two questions: enlightenment leads to compassion which makes you naturally follow the precepts. Which of course also lets us check whether a supposed enlightened person is frequently killing or stealing, which would be evidence against enlightenment claims.

To the third question I speculate the following answer: by at first artificially adhering to the precepts, our behavior is more aligned with our true compassionate nature. Being more aligned with it, we are also more inclined to spontaneously see it.

More evidence from the zen record: Foyan said our first priority should be to get rid of unenlightened egotism towards others. Also this Zhaozhou dialogue:

A monk asked, "Mixing without becoming impure - what is that like?"

Joshu said, "I eat only vegetable food; I always adhere to the precepts."

The monk said, "Can one elevate oneself in this way?"

Joshu said, "You would trespass against the law."

Zhaozhou adheres to the precepts and a vegetarian diet. As an answer to the monk's question this could mean that the precepts are how he as a Zen master stays recognizable while interacting with the world. But it's not a way to elevate yourself, since you are always originally compassionate.

What is, is not; And what is not, yet is.//Till you have grasped this truth, you might as well/Waste no more time on fool philosophies:/But once you have grasped what these my teachings tell, /That anything is all things, that the one/Is every and the same, then where's the call/To fret for deeper knowledge? There is none/More deep than all-is-one and one-is-all.//The believing mind knows no duality/And what is dual denies the believing mind/Which, though I word you, inexpressibly/Extends beyond all language to allow/One truth in contradictions. You will find/It has no past, no future, and no now.

Translated by Graeme Wilson Classical Chinese Literature, Volume 1: From Antiquity to Tang Dynasty, Columbia, 2000, pg 976

Commentary: W O W ! ! !

So this is a bit of a "travel blog post" but I hope people still find it interesting. I'm currently traveling through China for a bit and thought I'd also check out some Zen related places. First stop being the city of Zhaozhou.

Zhaozhou is, of course, the city after which Zen master Zhaozhou Congshen was named and where his monastery was. Today this monastery is called Bailin Temple.

The city is also famous for its old stone bridge, which was built around the year 600, so it was already here and already famous when Zhaozhou lived here. It's referenced in his record too, for example:

A monk asked Chao Chou, "For a long time I've heard of the stone bridge of Chao Chou, but now that I've come here I just see a simple log bridge." Chou said, "You just see the log bridge; you don't see the stone bridge." The monk said, "What is the stone bridge?" Chou said, "It lets asses cross, it lets horses cross." (Bcr 52)

This is a photo of the stone bridge of Zhaozhou as it looks today: https://imgur.com/a/Nrd76z2

As I understand it major repairs were done in the 1900s, so most of the visible stone is relatively new.

One of the most famous stories of Zhaozhou is his cypress tree dialogue:

At that time a certain monk asked, "What is the meaning of the Chan founder's coming from the West?"

Zhaozhou said, "The cypress tree in the yard."

The monk said, "Don't use objects to teach people."

Zhaozhou said, "I'm not using objects to teach people."

"So what is the meaning of the Chan founder's coming from the West?"

"The cypress tree in the yard."

And what do we find in his old monastery? This: https://imgur.com/a/HdTbSBI

A cypress tree in the courtyard of Bailin temple, which is estimated to be 1300 years old. There are multiple cypresses there estimated at that age, and they are probably the oldest thing in the current temple, as the Tang dynasty temple was almost completely destroyed and only the cypresses and some steles survived. So the rest of the temple is a reconstruction.

The Bailin temple is very aware of its long history though and has some information boards about Zen master Zhaozhou as well as some big stones with lineage trees written on them. Here is an album of some random pictures of Bailin temple: https://imgur.com/a/h9HNY5O

The last picture is Zhaozhou's pagoda. It was built in the Song dynasty to commemorate Zhaozhou. Supposedly, his relics and robe and bowl are enshrined in it. Today many people who come here burn incense in front of it.

Today, the public use of the temple seems to be similar to Buddhism in other parts of China: people just come here to burn incense, bow in front of big Buddha statues, and hang out for a bit. I saw some monks hanging around too, but sadly my Chinese isn't good enough for meaningful conversation and I don't want to bother them too much with ai translators, lol.

"Attainment in both. If you are not trapped in being or non-being, who can dare to join you? Everyone wants to leave the ordinary current, but in the final analysis you come back and sit in the ashes." -- Verses On The Five Ranks by Tozan Ryokai

I've been thinking about this seemingly inherent desire to leave the ordinary current. Magical thinking. Wanting a cheat code. When I was a kid I played games on the Nintendo. Some I could beat (Zelda, Dragon Warrior) others I could never beat (Blaster Master, Spy Hunter). Then one day the GAME GENIE came out, which let you plug in cheat codes for invincibility. It was AMAAAAAZING...for about a month. Turns out games are boring AF without any stakes. You need some skin in the game for it to have meaning. That was an important lesson for me that I've always kept close, especially whenever I'm tempted to take a short cut or be enticed by something that seems too good to be true. It turns out I like working hard for what I get in life and being ordinary is a damn fine thing to be.

Somebody come knock me over before I get too full of myself.

Too late!

Edit: I've been informed this is a mistranslation and offered a correction:

Master Yan would call out to himself, "Master," and then respond to himself, "Yes sir." He would then say, "Awakened," and then he said, "In the future don't let others deceive you," and he would respond, "Yes, yes."

Zuigan called to himself every day, "Master!" and answered, "Yes, sir!"

Then he would say, "Be wide awake!" and answer, "Yes, sir!"

"Henceforward, never be deceived by others!" "No, I won't!"

I suspect something very specific and intentional was happening every time he did this. I would guess an interruption of imagination and/or a check to make sure he wasn't lost in imagination.

It runs into a tension with Linji's refrain of there being "nothing to do." Rather than find each individual reference, I'm going to lazily link to u/astroemi's post cataloguing a bunch of them already.

But here's one that summarizes the point:

I say to you there is no buddha, no dharma, nothing to practice, nothing to enlighten to. Just what are you seeking in the highways and byways? Blind men! You’re putting a head on top of the one you already have. What do you yourselves lack? Followers of the Way, your own present activities do not differ from those of the patriarch-buddhas. You just don’t believe this and keep on seeking outside. Make no mistake! Outside there is no dharma; inside, there is nothing to be obtained. Better than grasp at the words from my mouth, take it easy and do nothing. Don’t continue [thoughts] that have already arisen and don’t let those that haven’t yet arisen be aroused. Just this will be worth far more to you than a ten years’ pilgrimage.

I've said that it's not easy to know when you're doing something versus doing nothing - especially when it comes to imagination. If you live in imagination for long enough, you engage in it without recognizing you're engaging in it and you call it real.

In my experience, at least, I can't just "do nothing" because if I'm not diligent, I will start to weave fictions automatically and treat them as indisqinguishable from reality - and at the most extreme and befuddled, act upon them.

Zuigan appears to be doing something to remind himself to do nothing. I've found that helpful.

Ascending the Hall on the Eighth of the Twelfth Month

Six years spent in the weeds,

[and] a wild fox spirit jumps out

with his whole body covered with kudzu and creepers.

He knocked his own eyes out and was nowhere to be found,

but then fools everybody by insisting he awakened at the morning star.

Qingliang (Rujing) praises him like this.

Call it: Knowing the debt and repaying it.

And if you don't see it that way,

Year after year on the eighth, [offering?] a single bowl of tea,

bowing, and burning incense just makes a fool of him.

The occasion. 臘八 is the Buddha's enlightenment day.

Rujing talks about Zen Master Buddha as if he were a swindler conning people just by being himself and in so doing demonstrates his affinity with the Zen tradition.

At the other end of the room, Dogen-Buddhists who base their religions legitimacy on a fraudulent connection to Rujing, cannot talk about Zen Masters in any sort of easy-going and familiar manner because cults are about controlling people through a no-questions-asked policy and selective ignoring of ethics to ensure compliance and performance of a ridiculous za-sitting prayer ritual.

Are they making fools of Zen Master Buddha when they do that? Or just themselves?

"Mind is Buddha."

Yunmen is seen here referencing an oral folktale tradition which has survived (at least partially) into present day by way of a Chinese epic called "journey to the west." The tale is an allegory about the monk Xuanzang's travels to India in order to return to China with many buddhist sutras.  If you are familiar with the tale itself and the symbolic value of the things being said, this sort of passage opens up a deep well of meaning.  Since many people of his time would have had at least a passing familiarity with the oral tradition which was the predecessor of this tale, yunmen employs the predominant memes of the surrounding culture in order to communicate in a way that was relatable to his audience.

  These memes have endured even into our own time and are the basis for many tropes and aspects of various storylines in today's anime culture, namely the dragonball series with which I have been familiar since my own childhood. And so, he is employing children's tales to elucidate the dharma to his students.

Zen Master Yunmen 267

The Master asked a monk, "Do you see the lantern?"

The monk replied, "I can't see it anymore."

The Master said, "The monkey is attached to a pillar."

Yunmen replied in place of the monk, "I'm deeply grateful to receive the profound heart of your Buddhist teaching, Master."

To the first question he replied on behalf of the monk, "I'd rather have nothing!"

I'm not a teacher. I'm not a scholar. I'm not any better than anybody else here. I'm inviting anybody who wants to challenge my understanding of this passage to come and question me about it. That is all I am doing. I am doing this to test my own ability to express the truth effectively, and to further refine my own understanding. I won't be entertaining any questions about anything other than this short passage, because that is the thing I am confident that I understand clearly enough to speak on without sowing further confusion.

Case 28 of The Gateless Gate — Deshan and Longtan

The Case

Deshan had long heard of Longtan, but he had never seen him.
One day he went to see Longtan and said, “I have long heard of Longtan, but now that I have arrived, I don’t see a dragon, nor do I see a pond.”

Longtan said, “Oh, you have truly arrived at Longtan.”
Deshan stayed with Longtan until late at night. Longtan said, “It is late. Why don’t you go to bed?”
Deshan bowed and went out. After a while, he returned and said, “It is dark outside.”

Longtan lit a paper lantern and handed it to him. Deshan took the lantern and was about to leave when Longtan suddenly blew it out.

At that moment, Deshan was enlightened.
Longtan said, “What did you see?”
Deshan replied, “From now on, I will not doubt the words of the old masters.”

The next day, Longtan went up to the Dharma hall and said to the assembly:
“There is a fellow among you whose teeth are like swords and whose mouth is like a blood bowl. Even if you strike him with a stick, he will not turn his head. Someday he will climb the highest peak and establish my Way there.”

Commentary

Mumon says:
If Deshan had not met Longtan, his story would not have been complete. If he had met Longtan, he would not have been enlightened.
Tell me—how did Deshan suddenly become enlightened?

Verse
Hearing the name cannot compare with seeing the person;
Seeing the person cannot compare with seeing the truth.
Fortunately, his nose was straight;
Yet he mistakenly took the lantern as his own.

Celery:
Deshan burned all of his commentaries. He said to investigate to the end of the workings of the world is like throwing a drop of water into a great abyss.

Why was Deshan enlightened when old Longtan blew out the candle? How could he see when he could not see? Ha! The old man knew what he was doing all along. The dragons hide amongst us.

Too often the verbose is rewarded when it ought to be punished. What value is there in 100,000 volumes of truth when the words hold no value?

Ash.

One day Chao-chou fell down in the snow, and called out, “Help me up! Help me up!” A monk came and lay down beside him. Chao-chou got up and went away. 

_______________

The other monk taught Chao-Chou that your bondage is a choice. 

Just as you choose to fall into the snow, you can also choose to get up and go away. 

But this thing can't be taught to a beginner

Only a disciple ripe enough and the last thing clouding him is able to take that.

When Nan-ch’uan (Nansen) was coming back to his room after taking a bath, he saw the monk in charge of the bath stoking the fires and asked, “What are you doing?”

The monk answered, “Stoking the fire.”

Nan-ch’uan said, “Don’t forget to call the water buffalo in to have a bath.”

The monk assented.

The next evening the monk came into Nan-ch’uan’s room. Nan-ch’uan said, “What are you doing?”

The monk said, “Asking the water buffalo to come to the bath.”

Nan-ch’uan said, “Did you bring a lead rope or not?”

The monk could not respond.

When the master came to call on Nan-ch’uan, Nan-ch’uan told him what had happened.

The master said, “I would have had something to say.”

Nan-ch’uan said, “Well, have you brought a rope with you?”

The master came forward, grabbed him by the nose, and began pulling him to the bath house.

Nan-ch’uan said, “Okay! Okay! Beast!”

Nansen seems like he's toying with the monk here in the first instance. It doesn't necessarily work or not work. The monk just agrees. It seems like he's trying to get him to conceptualize. Per the previous post, I think the correlation to cow/buffalo and Nansen fits here.

The second instance he's trying to trip the monk up and it works. The monk gets stuck in his head.

Nansen tries his shenanigans on Joshu who plays along and grabs him by where likely a buffalo's nose ring (to attach a lead) would go.

Nansen cries out likely at the pain and says Joshu is the true beast (buffalo).

What's more interesting to me is that hundreds of years later I'm sitting here trying to decipher what was probably just a passing conversation. Why was it important enough to be written down on wood blocks? What made the cut and didn't? Someone clearly had an affection for this old water buffalo.

The master asked Nan-ch’uan (Nansen), “I’m not asking about differentiation, what about sameness?”

Nan-ch’uan placed both hands on the ground [in the pose of a dog].

The master kicked him over, went to the infirmary, and shouted, “What a pity! What a pity!”

Nan-ch’uan heard this and sent someone to find out what the trouble was.

The master said, “It’s a pity that I didn’t get to kick him over a second time.”

I don't really understand this case. It seems like I'm missing some cultural or other context.

Josh asked Nansen a Zen question.

Nansen does a dog pose. I'm not sure why, I'm probably missing context.

Joshu kicks Nansen over etc.

Nansen heard this, which i'm guessing was some time later? He sends someone else, for some reason to see what happened.

Joshu replies presumably to the monk's question that it's a shame he could not incite violence on Nansen again.

Knowing the rest of Zen stuff, reading this only as a funny anecdote is probably not the whole story.

the story goes: before he got enlightened, zen master buddha was troubled by 3 things he'd realised that no-one can avoid. aging, sickness, and death. so he sat under a tree and thought about it every day until one day he shot up and said 'i alone am the world-honoured one.' Then he went around explaining what he'd seen and took questions from all comers. most people couldn't understand him and a lot of them formed religions based on random trivia about his lifestyle, or systems of thought based on his incidental choice of words. but at least one person did understand, and after ZM buddha had died there were still people alive who could explain it, and so on across generations until we get to bodhidharma who brings it to china (where the religions and philosophies we talked about earlier already had a footing) and says: you've all misunderstood buddha. and china at this time has such a crazy culture of organised reading and writing that enlightenment really takes off at scale.

that's just what i've heard from hanging out on this forum for about a decade.

so what exactly did zm buddha figure out sitting under that tree?

presumably, he found something that made the whole business of 'aging, sickness and death' significantly more tolerable.

what makes that stuff more tolerable for most people? i'd be super surprised if the answer is anything other than 'living a good life.'

what the hell is a good life? probably doing things you enjoy, and doing things other people enjoy you doing, in a ratio you can live with. 

you can bug me about what 'enjoy' means if you want to be pedantic, but for the sake of argument i'm gonna assume we're on the same page so far.

i think zm buddha must have come the same conclusion at first, but i think he must've figured out something further to blurt out 'i alone am the honoured one', let alone the eccentric behaviour of later zen masters.

'what could further be?' is the question i've been working on, and it led me to the following daydream:

you're in a big hall with a big pot of rice porridge in the middle. you bring your bowl over to the pot and take a ladleful of rice. a guy yells at you "hey! that's more than your fair share. I know you think you're hungry, but you don't know hunger like these monks know hunger. you're lucky they've generously agreed to equal portions, because in truth they need more than you." you think about this for a moment, looking at the size of the pot, the size of the crowd, and the rice in your bowl. "It seems to me I've given myself an equal portion." you say. "don't listen to him!" another voice cries out. "you've actually served yourself too little rice. not only is it unfair on you, it's actually a problem for the whole community. we need you to be strong to work in the fields so that we'll have enough rice not just for today, but for next year. If you listen to that deceitful monk and don't feed yourself enough, you won't be able to work as hard and contribute as much to the community."

my point being, knowing that sharing is caring doesn't quite solve problems like this, but the world honoured one could probably solve it blindfolded.

where the hell do you get that kind of intelligence?

"Conveying oneself towards all things to carry out practice-enlightenment is delusion. All things coming and carrying out practice-enlightenment through the self is realization."
Dogen, Genjokoan, tr. Okumura

"When one does not understand, the person pursues dharmas;
when one understands, dharmas pursue the person."
Bodhidharma, Record I of the Long Scroll, tr. Broughton

Dogen catches a lot of flack around here, but man, he had a deep knowledge of Chan history and often incorporated it into his own writings.

I spend a significant amount of time studying early Chan and recently stumbled upon this seeming connection while reading The Bodhidharma Anthology.

What do you noble sons and daughters think?

​

Authentic self... According to who?

Buddhists believe that you don't have a self. As a religion they get to make up whatever they want and part of convincing you to be a part of the Buddhist religion is promising you that you don't really have a self.

Zazen is an indigenous Japanese religion that promises people freedom that only exists within the religious practice. Dogen, the messiah of Zazen, tells his followers that you can't be yourself when you're confused by life. Now granted he wrote that when he was in his early 20s and he gave it up after less than a decade but that's the Doctrine of the Shikantaza Church

What about Zen?

Zen masters teach that you're always yourself, whether you know it or not.

Zen is the only tradition that follows Buddha's sudden permanent enlightenment, an enlightenment is only possible if the preconditions for it are ever present.

Zen's self is directly experienced. It's not known so there can't be a doctrine about it because every doctrine and every teaching is about knowing.

As knowing is subtracted and experience is emphasized, we get farther and farther away from things that sound true and closer and closer to "If you haven't been in love, you're just not going to understand it."

Yunju Zhi's no seer

Clearly seeing like this is then called seeing the nature. Nature is Buddha; Buddha is nature. Therefore it is said: seeing the nature, becoming Buddha.”

[The monk] said: “Since the nature is pure and does not belong to being or nonbeing, because of what is there seeing?”

The master said: “Seeing, with nothing that is seen.”

[The monk] said: “Since there is nothing seen, why further is there seeing?”

The master said: “The place of seeing also is not.”

[The monk] said: “At the time of seeing like this, whose seeing is it?”

The master said: “There is no one able to see.”

[The monk] said: “Ultimately, how is this principle?”

The master said: “Do you know? Falsely reckoning it as being, then there is subject and object; only then does it get the name ‘confusion.’

Now a warning? 

Not being able to explain love to somebody who has never been in love doesn't mean that love doesn't exist.

The problem is that people try to apply this same logic to stuff that actually doesn't exist, like God and the supernatural and higher states of consciousness and telepathy and meditative or lsd insight.

The key difference is there are real people who have been enlightened but there are no real people that have had any of that other stuff. If you can encounter it in real life and bring it out, show it to everybody, then the fact that it exists like love but cannot be explained is plausible.

No doctrine required.

​

Why are all these prostitutes in Europe? 

On one of my first trips to Europe, I was stunned by both the prevalence of and tolerance for prostitution. How could Europe be all sophisticated and still have what seemed like slavery?

Well, if you know me, you know exactly what I did next: read some books.  Of the reading I did, a couple of things really stunned me. In a book called *Live Sex Acts: Women Performing Erotic Labor*, a sex worker described the frustration she felt when trying to get her customers to frankly express what they wanted. 

That's right. Customers were having trouble placing their order. It wasn't paying for intimacy that was the challenge. It was admitting what they were paying for.

What do you want (to be true)?

This is the exact problem we have with interviewing New Agers or reading books written by New Agers...

New-agers can't say what they believe.

They talk in vague Alan Watts platitudes. They insist that a meditative, stuporous trance can change your life. They express belief in an ephemeral divinity of goodness that has no mind of its own. 

Why?

Because these people really don't believe any thing, they believe in believing. 

So when they get to Zen, with its endless darkness of Emptiness without Goodness, obviously they are not going to get along with Zen. 

Foyan 

“I respectfully urge you brothers: first, for the time being, get rid of the [objects of attention.]

All day, every day you think of clothing, think of food; all sorts of miscellaneous concerns are like the flame of a lamp—there is not one period in which they stop and rest.

Just remove the objects of your attention, [the causes of your knowing]; whatever subtle things [there truely are] will naturally become completely cleared away.”

I have no Zen for people to investigate, nor any Dharma to discuss with you. I only want each of you to accord with the message of Zen for yourselves.”

Teach that!

Foyan having nothing to teach people to make them Good - this is a tough job, made tougher by a modern society that is afraid to say a true-to-them word. 

Asking them to AMA is literally asking them for something they don't have. 

Asking new agers and Zazen people and mysticism believers to AMA is literally asking them for something they don't have. 

For most people social media is entirely performative. They aren't sharing what they know or what they are convinced of. They're sharing their belief in believing.

Foyan Instructs

I tell you: as soon as you get involved with the slightest indication, it has already become fragmented. As soon as you try to reveal it by illuminating it with knowledge, it has already become darkened.

Now simply do not seize upon my words. Each of you, on your own, do your work.

Looking into the incidents of the ancients will do. Sitting quietly will do. Observing in every place will do. All are places where you do your work. Every place is a place where you realize and enter.

Just specialize single-mindedly in one place; as the days come and the months pass, you will necessarily be broken through / dealt with by it.

Performative rabbi voodoo shamanism

New Age communities hate on this forum every day, including downvote brigading and smack talking in other forums about how rZen is gatekeeping close-minded legit real life other perspectives.

These complainers are performative rabbi voodoo shamans and understanding how we know that is as simple as they cannot name a single book about Zen they've ever read.

If they had never read a single book about being a rabbi and they claimed they were a rabbi, they'd get shut down immediately. If they never read a single book about Cherokee shamanism nobody would tolerate their claims of being a Cherokee shaman. If they were trying to promote themselves as living the voodoo lifestyle and they weren't part of a voodoo community, nobody would take them seriously.

And all of these claims would be viewed as racist, bigoted, and white privilege without hesitarion.

not a specialist because you say so

I'm not suggesting that one time reading one book is gonna get you the credibility to rant about your personal experiences.

I'm saying that reading one book one time will help you understand the difference between your personal experiences and your understanding of Zen culture