Merle, Reread the story. It's not what he drank it out of, it's what he drank....
Drinking polluted water full of worms because you are too irrational to tell the difference is NOT Zen. Edgar On May 19, 2013, at 4:03 AM, Merle Lester wrote: > > > > the skull was a cup..so what?..served the purpose at the time...get over it > edgar...merle > > > Edgar, > > Au contraire mon ami... > > When Won Hyo experienced drinking water that night there was no mistake. > > The next morning when Won Hyo learned he drank from a skull it was then he > perceived a mistake. His intellect created the judgement of mistake at that > time. > > There are no mistakes in experience or Buddha Nature. There are only mistakes > in perception and the intellect. This is because 'mistake' is a rational > concept. > > Capisce? > > ...Bill! > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: > > > > Bill, > > > > No, it points to the fact that if one doesn't use his rational mind his > > direct experience makes mistakes (mistaking the skull for a cup). > > > > Making mistakes one doesn't realize the true nature of reality. > > > > Therefore the rational mind is necessary to recognize the true nature of > > reality. > > > > Therefore using the rational mind is an essential part of Zen.. > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > On May 18, 2013, at 6:50 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > Edgar, > > > > > > That might be true if the man from whose skull he drank had died of some > > > communicable disease, but as you well know that's not the point of the > > > story. > > > > > > The point of the story is that when Won Hyo was not able to completely > > > engage his rational mind (because of the lack of information caused by > > > the darkness) the experience of the water was refreshing. In the morning > > > when he was able to fully engage his rational mind the perception of his > > > having drank from the skull was nauseating. > > > > > > The story points out the difference between experience and perception, > > > the difference between Buddha Nature (experience) and rationalization > > > (thought). Won Hyo's conclusion was: "Ah, he said to himself, thinking > > > makes good and bad, life and death. And without thinking these is no > > > universe, no Buddha, no Dharma. All is one, and this one is empty." > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill, > > > > > > > > LOL! And then Won Hyo died of whatever had killed the guy who's skull > > > > he drank out of. > > > > > > > > Why? Because he was a comic book Zennist who didn't have enough sense > > > > to use his RATIONAL MIND! > > > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 18, 2013, at 12:39 AM, Bill! wrote: > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > > > > > > And what I am saying (and IMO) is perception should NOT be used to > > > > > illustrate Buddha Nature. > > > > > > > > > > Perceptions are creations of the intellect (Human Nature). > > > > > > > > > > [The awareness of sensual]experience is Buddha Nature. (The > > > > > qualifiers in [brackets] should be unnecessary but I know many do not > > > > > share my definition of 'experience'.) > > > > > > > > > > Here is another zen story that I think I posted just recently that > > > > > perhaps better illustrates my point: > > > > > > > > > > "This is a story about Won Hyo, who is a famous Korean monk. He > > > > > wanted to travel to China to meet a master that would teach him > > > > > Buddhism. > > > > > > > > > > One evening as Won Hyo was crossing the desert, he stopped at a small > > > > > patch of green, where there were a few trees and some water, and went > > > > > to sleep. Towards midnight he awoke, thirsty--it was pitch-dark. He > > > > > groped along on all fours, searching for water. At last his hand > > > > > touched a cup on the ground. He picked it up and drank. Ah, how > > > > > delicious! Then he bowed deeply, in gratitude, to the Buddha for the > > > > > gift of water. The next morning, Won Hyo woke up and saw besides him > > > > > what he had taken for a cup (during the night). It was a shattered > > > > > skull, blood-caked and with shreds of flesh still stuck to the > > > > > cheek-bones. Strange insects crawled or floated on the surface of the > > > > > filthy rainwater inside it. Won Hyo looked at the skull and felt a > > > > > great wave of nausea. He opened his mouth. As soon as the vomit > > > > > poured out, his mind opened and he understood. Last night, since he > > > > > hadn't seen and hadn't thought, the water was delicious. This > > > > > morning, seeing and thinking had made him vomit. Ah, he said to > > > > > himself, thinking makes good and bad, life and death. And without > > > > > thinking these is no universe, no Buddha, no Dharma. All is one, and > > > > > this one is empty. There was no need now to find a master. Won Hyo > > > > > already understood life and death. What more was there to learn? So > > > > > he turned and started back across the desert to Korea." > > > > > > > > > > -From the book entitled, "Thousand Peaks" by Mu Soeng Sunim > > > > > > > > > > Now, IMO Buddha Nature is pure experience, like Won Hyo's experience > > > > > of drinking the water. It would be like the 'Ah!' I recommended in > > > > > the strawberry story. Both his initial perception of 'delicious' and > > > > > his later perception which caused him to be nauseous is like the > > > > > 'sweet' exclamation in the strawberry story. > > > > > > > > > > So unless you want to interpret 'sweet' to just be a spontaneous, > > > > > non-judgmental exclamation IMO it is not an appropriate > > > > > representation of Buddha Nature. I'd also think that is shown by all > > > > > the confusion and dialog it has caused on just this thread. > > > > > > > > > > But, as usual, all this is CAVEAT EMPTOR and IMO only...Bill! > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], uerusuboyo@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Bill!,<br/><br/>You could well be correct about the story not being > > > > > > used as a recognised koan. But I'm sure I've come across it being > > > > > > used as such a couple of times. <br/><br/>I can see how "Ah!" could > > > > > > be used as you say, but it isn't. The point I'm arguing here is > > > > > > that in the story - a Zen teaching 'device'- a perception was used > > > > > > by the man to illustrate Buddha Nature. The man didn't just say > > > > > > "Sweet!" as a passive description - he exclaimed his perception > > > > > > positively.<br/><br/>Mike<br/><br/><br/>Sent from Yahoo! Mail for > > > > > > iPad > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
