Mike, I agree especially with your statement below that "...the ultimate understanding of a koan as experiential and visceral - similar to the understanding of a joke. The total personality is involved. If a joke is explained intellectually, then much of it's humour is lost."
I wince a little bit with the word 'understand', because 'understand' usually refers to intellection, and it is not that. It is as is said 'experiential and visceral'. ...Bill! --- In [email protected], mike brown <uerusuboyo@...> wrote: > > Kris, > > I'm not qualified to teach koan practice, so you could well be correct, > however, my understanding about koans differs from yours somewhat. There are > many different ways a koan can be interpreted, but if the the 'answer' is > only realised cognitively, and not experienced, then it'll not be accepted. > Alan Watts' puts it well, as he usually does, when he claims the ultimate > understanding of a koan as experiential and visceral - similar to the > understanding of a joke. The total personality is involved. If a joke is > explained intellectually, then much of it's humour is lost. > > > > > > From: Kristopher Grey <kris@...> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, 5 September 2012, 14:20 > Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl > > >  > Such is the nature of koans. > > Some will experience the story as an example of a metaphor (mind). > > Some will experience the metaphoric story as none other than a > direct example of itself in action (no-mind). > > Some will experience recognition of them as both (ordinary mind as > original mind). > > Some realize that however they appear, these experiences are only > stories (original mind).... > > The koan, only a reflection of this. > > KG > > > PS - Mountain - no mountain - mountain again. > > > Mind wanders mountains, yet never moves. > > No-mind wanders no mountain, yet is free to move. > > Buddha mind moves mountains, effortlessly. > > > > > 9/5/2012 5:56 AM, mike brown wrote: > >  > >Bill!, > > > >I appreciate that you began your post with a caveat that > the meaning of Joshu's 'wash your bowls' was just your > opinion. However, isn't what you wrote (rice-gruel = > Buddhism) just a secondary meaning to the koan, and worse, > an intellectual overlay giving it a meaning in order to be > understood. Joshu's instruction to the monk to wash his > bowl was exactly that - to go and wash his bowl. Nothing > added necessary because washing your bowl, with nothing > added, manifests Buddha Nature. Reminds me of the Watts > quote where he states that spirituality in Christianity is > washing the dishes while thinking about God. Spirituality > in Zen isjust washing the dishes. > > > > > > > >Mike > > > > > >________________________________ > > From: Bill! <BillSmart@...> > >To: [email protected] > >Sent: Wednesday, 5 September 2012, 10:02 > >Subject: [Zen] Re: clarification of the bowl > > > > > > > >Merle, > > > >A long, long time ago in a reply to one of > your pleas for help to Edgar and after reading > you two go back and forth and Edgar filling > your head with all sorts of advice I quoted a > story associated with a zen koan. The koan is > entitled WASH YOUR BOWLS and is Case #7 in THE > GATELESS GATE collection. I'll repeat it > again: > > > >"A monk asked Joshu in all earnestness, "I > have just entered the monastery. I beg you, > Master, please give me instructions. "Joshu > asked, "Have you eaten your rice gruel yet?" > The monk answered, "Yes, I have." Joshu said, > "Then wash your bowls." The monk attained some > realization." > > > >In the above mondo (Japanese - dialog between > zen adepts regarding Buddha Nature) it is MY > OPINION that Joshu used the terms 'rice gruel' > to represent learning - understanding things; > and used 'bowls' to represent your > discriminating mind - your intellect or > rational mind. IN MY OPINION what Joshu was > saying to the monk was, 'Have you learned all > about Buddhism? If so then you now have to > discard all that because it is only with an > empty mind free from the illusions of duality > and its products that you will be able to > realize Buddha Nature. > > > >So...when you ask for information and advice > Edgar gives it to you. You ask about how to > deal with attachments and he tells you. From > all I've seen it's good advice. His advice > might indeed reduce the severity of your > attachments or enable you to better cope with > them, but it won't ever enable you to end > them. Following the analogy of the story he > spoons more and more rice gruel into your > bowl. That's fine if all you want is a lot of > knowledge (all of which is illusory anyway), > but if what you're really after is an end to > attachments, an end to suffering, then you > should be looking to halt the creation of > duality, illusion and the attachments that > brings. That is what Joshu refers to IMO as > 'wash your bowls'. > > > >There are many ways to do that but the most > common way used in Zen Buddhism is zazen (zen > meditation). > > > >I am not 'obsessed' with bowls and rice gruel, > it is Edgar who is obsessed with those. I'm > 'obsessed' with telling people to stop trying > to 'understand' zen and start practicing it - > and the first step is zazen. > > > >...Bill! > > > >--- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > >> > >> bill..that is your take on this..as i see > it edgar... says there are no bowls..there > just is... and that is zen...zen is zen is > zen..what's with the bowls anyway..you seem to > be obsessed with them..merle > >> à> >> Merle, > >> > >> I forgot to respond to your second > question. > >> > >> You may share your bowl with others. > Edgar is trying to share a lot of the contents > of his bowl with you. The problem is when he > does that the contents of both of your bowls > just get more full, and sooner of later if you > want to realize Buddha Nature you're going to > have to empty them - at least temporarily. > >> > >> ...Bill! > >> > >> --- In [email protected], Merle Lester <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > Ãâà> >> > Ãâàplease clarify bill..does it > matter the size of bowl?... is the bowl shared > with others?...merle > >> > Ãâà> >> > KG, > >> > > >> > 'You' do have a choice and it is the > rice that is dirtying your bowl. Your illusory > self is the one responsible for making the > choice and putting more rice in or cleaning > the bowl. Your illusory self can choose one > way or the other. > >> > > >> > If you are not creating an illusory > self (are manifesting Buddha Nature) then yes, > as you've said before, there is no bowl and > there is no choice to be made. > >> > > >> > ...Bill! > >> > > >> > --- In [email protected], Kristopher Grey <kris@> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Believing you make such a > choice, is blaming the rice for dirtying your > >> > > bowl. > >> > > > >> > > KG > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On 9/4/2012 9:05 PM, Bill! > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > Merle, > >> > > > > >> > > > You are correct that > reality comes with no frills, but you do have > a > >> > > > choice. You can choose to > invent frills (illusions) and become > >> > > > attached to them. Or you > can choose not to do that. Choosing not to do > >> > > > and dropping all > attachments is called 'washing your > bowl'...Bill! > >> > > > > >> > > > --- In [email protected] > >> > > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, > >> > > > Merle Lester > <merlewiitpom@> wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ take it as it > comes..no frills...you do not have a choice > ..merle > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > >> > > > > Merle, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >that's when zen > is most needed mike...to get you through the > day > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Should I take it > straight or on the rocks? ; ) > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Mike > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > ________________________________ > >> > > > > From: Merle Lester > <merlewiitpom@> > >> > > > > To: "[email protected] > >> > > > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>" > >> > > > <[email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>> > >> > > > > Sent: Monday, 3 > September 2012, 22:31 > >> > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] > Re: " dancing with the daffodils" > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ that's when zen > is most needed mike...to get you through the > >> > > > day...merle > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Ultimately, yes - in > day to day living, no. At least not in the > >> > > > story of my life. It's so > easy to claim Buddhahood when things are > >> > > > going well, but just watch > that little house of cards coming crashing > >> > > > down when you get a nasty > hemorrhoids on a hot, sweaty day or your > >> > > > girlfriend cheats on you. > That's why even something as simple as being > >> > > > mindful of the breath can > be the most difficult thing in the world in > >> > > > such circumstances. You > can philosophise your way out of it here quite > >> > > > easily, but meanwhile back > in the real world [insert exegesis on 'real > >> > > > world' here].. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Mike > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > ________________________________ > >> > > > > From: Kristopher Grey > <kris@> > >> > > > > To: [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> > >> > > > > Sent: Monday, 3 > September 2012, 1:34 > >> > > > > Subject: Re: [Zen] > Re: " dancing with the daffodils" > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > >> > > > > This matter of > whether there is or isn't isn't someone to > suffer is > >> > > > all smoke and mirrors. > Suffering appears. This is clear enough. What > >> > > > is this notion of > "liberation from" but self relating to self? > What > >> > > > appears, appears. What of > it? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Clarity, selfless. No > self that need to see into itself. No such > >> > > > > conceptual > contortions required. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Don't settle for > nothing. Don't attach to anything. This takes > no > >> > > > > effort. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > KG > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On 9/2/2012 5:35 PM, > mike brown wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > >> > > > > >Kris, > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >There is no one > who suffers, but only after the realisation > that > >> > > > there isn't even a mind > for suffering to happen to is there liberation > >> > > > from it. "Clarity" here > reads as insight. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >Mike > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >________________________________ > >> > > > > > From: Kristopher > Grey <kris@> > >> > > > > >To: [email protected] <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> > >> > > > > >Sent: Sunday, 2 > September 2012, 20:23 > >> > > > > >Subject: Re: > [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils" > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > >> > > > > >Then you still > know too much. ;) > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >If it so clear as > that, there is nothing to > >> > > > > see. The > 'obscuration' all that may show the > >> > > > > way. What you are > seeing as separate only > >> > > > > appears to be. All a > matter of how you see it. > >> > > > > So who is leading > who? Who suffers? In seeking > >> > > > > perfection, it > forever eludes. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >The clear minded > are equally empty headed. > >> > > > > Don't throw the > Buddha out with the bathwater. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >KG > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >PS - Expresses > simpler/more obviously > >> > > > > wordlessly - see: > 'Wabi Sabi' - > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >On 9/2/2012 12:32 > PM, mike brown wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > >> > > > > >>Kris, > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >>>I might > point out that apparent obscuration is no less > reality > >> > > > than apparent clarity > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >>Reality is > certainly there regardless, but > >> > > > > reality seen with > obscuration leads to > >> > > > > suffering, whereas > reality seen with > >> > > > > clarity will lead to > the cessation of > >> > > > > suffering. That's all > I need to know and > >> > > > > that is my > witness.ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >>Mike > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >>________________________________ > >> > > > > >> From: > Kristopher Grey <kris@> > >> > > > > >>To: [email protected] > >> > > > > >><mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> > >> > > > > >>Sent: Sunday, > 2 September 2012, 16:11 > >> > > > > >>Subject: Re: > [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils" > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >>ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > >> > > > > >>I might point > out that apparent obscuration is no less > reality > >> > > > than apparent clarity. In > doing so, this point only dances around > >> > > > itself - offers nothing > you can't realize directly. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >>What can > anyone say in > >> > > > > response that you > will not > >> > > > > directly experience > (realize) > >> > > > > as some aspect of > this > >> > > > > reality/realization- > whether > >> > > > > you realize it or not > - just > >> > > > > as when experiencing > >> > > > > meditation/not > meditation? > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >>This more or > less business is > >> > > > > you triangulating > your > >> > > > > position. Nothing > more, > >> > > > > nothing less. > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >>KG > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >>On 9/2/2012 > 5:57 AM, mike > >> > > > > brown wrote: > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >>ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > >> > > > > >>>Edgar, > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>>Wouldn't > you say tho, that reality is less obscured > during, or > >> > > > just after, a long retreat > of meditation? > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>>Mike > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > > >>>________________________________ > >> > > > > >>> From: > Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> > >> > > > > >>>To: [email protected] > >> > > > > >>><mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> > >> > > > > >>>Sent: > Sunday, 2 September 2012, 1:13 > >> > > > > >>>Subject: > Re: [Zen] Re: " dancing with the daffodils" > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>>ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > >> > > > > >>>Mike, > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>>Well, > it's reality either way, but that reality is > always > >> > > > changing as happening > continually flows through the present moment. > >> > > > But however it changes it > is still reality.... > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>>Edgar > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>>On Sep 1, > 2012, at 6:09 PM, mike brown wrote: > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>>ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>Edgar, > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>>Would > you say that the world (inner/outer) you look > at now is > >> > > > the same as when you're at > the end of a sesshin? > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>>Mike > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>________________________________ > >> > > > > >>>> > From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> > >> > > > > >>>>To: [email protected] > >> > > > > >>>><mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com> > >> > > > > >>>>Sent: > Saturday, 1 September 2012, 18:44 > >> > > > > > >>>>Subject: Re: [Zen] Re: " > dancing with the daffodils" > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>>ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > >> > > > > >>>>ED, > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>>Stop > practicing and just BE your Buddha Nature! > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>>Edgar > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>>On > Sep 1, 2012, at 12:22 PM, ED wrote: > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>>ÃÆ'ââ¬Å¡ > >> > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>Edgar, > >> > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>Therefore, > >> > > > > although each > >> > > > > of us is > >> > > > > complete, we > >> > > > > need to > >> > > > > practice > >> > > > > > >>>>>diligently at > >> > > > > all times with > >> > > > > no objective > >> > > > > in mind? > >> > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>--ED > >> > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>--- In [email protected] > >> > > > <mailto:Zen_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Joe and > >> > > > > Merle, > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> There is > >> > > > > no 'goal' of > >> > > > > enlightenment > >> > > > > to be achieved > >> > > > > without which > >> > > > > you > >> > > > > > >>>>>imagine you > >> > > > > are > >> > > > > incomplete.... > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> There is > >> > > > > no > >> > > > > incompleteness. > >> > > > > This > >> > > > > understanding > >> > > > > is an > >> > > > > essential > >> > > > > aspect > >> > > > > > >>>>>of > >> > > > > realization... > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Wham! > >> > > > > > >>>>>> > >> > > > > > >>>>>> Edgar > >> > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > >>>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ 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/
