TOKUSAN CARRIES HIS BOWLS - The Gateless Gate - Case 13
"One day Tokusan came down to the hall carrying his [eating] bowls. Seppo
asked him, "Old Master, the bell has not yet rung nor the drum sounded
(announcing mealtime]. Where are you going with you bowls?" Tokusan
immediately went back to his room. Seppo told this to Ganto. Ganto said,
"Great Tokusan though he is, he has not yet realized the last word."
Hearing of this, Tokusan sent his attendant to summon Ganto and then asked
him, "Don't you approve of this old monk?" [referring to himself] Ganto
secretly whispered his intention. Tokusan remained silent.
Sure enough, the next day when Tokusan ascended the rostrum, his talk was
quite different from usual. Ganto went to the front of the Zen hall and
rubbing his hands together, laughed loudly and said, "Wonderful! How happy I
am that our Old Man has realized the last word. From now on he'll be subject
to no one on earth."
[Bill!] Why did Tokusan go to the hall carrying his bowls without hearing the
bell or the drum? Was he hungry? And if so why did he return to his room when
told the bell and drum had not sounded? Did that informaton satisfy his
hunger? What did Ganto whisper to Tokusan? What is the last word? Speak it!
Now!
...Bill!
--- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote:
>
> Siska,
> Â
> You eat for various reasons. The 'various reasons' are the various causes.
> Please note there are diferent views on this forum. Some think cause and
> effect is illusion. Others don't. Please watch the developments. I assure you
> you will not become a fox, as I will reject your application.
> Â
> Anthony
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "siska_cen@..." <siska_cen@...>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011, 8:38
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism
>
>
> Â
> Anthony,
>
> Yes, generally, that is the case. But sometimes it can be, I eat because it
> is my lunch time, I don't eat because I'm on diet, I eat because I want to
> gain weight, I don't eat because I'm observing the eight precepts today.....
>
> The earlier discussion was about how it is when buddha nature or pure
> awareness is present, which in my opinion, based on the little experience
> that I have, which may or may not be 'true', eating is just eating.
>
> I should probably clarify that at this point, I usually eat because of
> various reasons.
>
>
> Siska
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Anthony Wu <wuasg@...>
> Sender: [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:03:13 +0800 (SGT)
> To: [email protected]<[email protected]>
> ReplyTo: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism
> Â
> Siska,
> Â
> You 'eat' when you are 'hungry'. "Hunger" is the cause, then 'eat' is the
> effect or action. The purpose of eating is to eliminate hunger.
> Â
> Anthony
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: "siska_cen@..." <siska_cen@...>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2011, 21:50
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism
>
>
> Â
> Edgar,
>
> Why would one eat when he is hungry? Presumably to appease hunger?
>
> I don't think there is that causal relation going on. A mind with buddha
> nature is free, actions are not driven by any certain cause for any certain
> purpose.
>
> Siska
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...>
> Sender: [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:44:01 -0500
> To: <[email protected]>
> ReplyTo: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism
> Â
> Siska,
>
> There is still a reason or purpose but that purpose is not mediated or
> blocked. As Bill quotes: One eats when one is hungry...
>
> Edgar
>
>
>
> On Nov 23, 2011, at 5:55 AM, siska_cen@... wrote:
>
> Â
> >Hi Bill, Edgar,
> >
> >I must have mis-understood Edgar then.
> >
> >I would not call 'volition' at the presence of buddha nature as 'purposeful
> >action'. I agree with Bill that it would not involve a decision making
> >process. With purpose, there would still be reason behind the action. I
> >don't think there is.
> >
> >Siska
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> >From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...>
> >Sender: [email protected]
> >Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 07:55:41 -0500
> >To: <[email protected]>
> >ReplyTo: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: Zen and Buddhism
> >
> >Â
> >Bill and Siska,
> >
> >
> >Perhaps there is still 'purposeful action' is a better descriptor than
> >'volition'?
> >
> >
> >And yes, generally accurate representations of what I said...
> >
> >
> >Edgar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On Nov 22, 2011, at 3:09 AM, Bill! wrote:
> >
> >Â
> >>Siska,
> >>
> >>My comments are imbedded below:
> >>
> >>[Siska} ...When someone tells lies, and we perceive it as 'bad', then this
> >>perception is illusory. But when a thought of telling lies is bad, then it
> >>is just a thought on itself and it is just it, not illusory. I was
> >>wondering whether with pure awareness, this type of thoughts (mental
> >>objects) can still be there. I rather think they can.
> >>[Bill!] In my opinion all thoughts are illusory, but I'm an extremist on
> >>this point. As Edgar says I think the key is no so much whether this or
> >>that is illusory, but whether you form attachments to it.
> >>
> >>[Siska] On volition, my question is then, does it mean that with pure
> >>awareness one acts without volition or with untainted volition?
> >>[Bill!] Volition is a tricky term. Normal usage of 'volition' would imply
> >>'self', something that makes a decsion. When Buddha Nature is manifest
> >>there is no conscious decision-making, but I still beleive there is
> >>volition. I don't know why, or at least I can't explain it very well. I
> >>just don't usually think about these things this way. When Buddha Nature is
> >>manifest there is just 'doing', not so much 'deciding what to do' as we
> >>usually ascribe to 'volition'.
> >>
> >>[Siska] The way I understand it, Edgar was not saying the same thing. His
> >>description of not attached to attachment was something like: objects
> >>arise, being noted and let go. (Edgar, I apologise in advance if I quoted
> >>you wrongly).
> >>>
> >>> My description below is: objects arise and awareness is not affected at
> >>> all, not noting, not letting go, no response. Arising objects will
> >>> disappear, sooner or later, whether you let go or not. It's impermanent.
> >>[Bill!] I'll let Edgar respond to this one, and maybe he already has, but I
> >>think you're both saying pretty much the same thing. When he says "being
> >>noted and let go" I think he means 'being noted and not forming an
> >>attachment'. It's not so much an active 'letting go' as a non-action of 'no
> >>attachment'. And that is very close to what you have said. That's my
> >>interpretation anyway.
> >>
> >>...Bill!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------
Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
