Chris, I have no idea what you are saying here. Or where this seemingly irrational conclusion came from. Or are you projecting?
Edgar On Jun 11, 2013, at 11:09 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > Edgar, > > You write as tho you have caught your self engaged in self-deception, or > partial blindness of your own reality. For those of us who have a tendency > to prefer things to be slightly other than they are, or who have a lifetime > of not seeing certain parts of our functioning, ir can be useful to have a > teacher. It is harder to fool more people at the same time. Plus, having a > teacher to bounce things off of is pleasant. > > YMMV of course, and perhaps my own self unawareness is much higher than the > average. > > Chris > > > Thanks, > --Chris > 301-270-6524 > On Jun 11, 2013 3:57 AM, "Edgar Owen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Bill, > > Yes, in the limited teacher student context. But as I've explained before > reality is the ONLY real teacher. Human teachers may or may not serve as > little pieces of reality that facilitate pointing out Buddha Nature. > > But there is NO NEED AT ALL to 'convince' your teacher to pass the koan. You > either realize Buddha Nature or you don't. If you do the teacher is no longer > relevant.... > > One demonstrates Buddha Nature to Buddha Nature by realizing Buddha Nature. > NO teacher necessary other than reality itself. > > Only dependent personalities think teachers are a necessity. Did you need a > teacher to start breathing when you were born? > > Edgar > > > > On Jun 11, 2013, at 3:43 AM, Bill! wrote: > >> >> Edgar, >> >> Yes, demonstrating Buddha Nature is the 'answer' or 'solution' to all koans. >> And yes, that could involve pointing, or an utterance, or some other action >> or even silence and no action. And yes, you do have to 'convince' your >> teacher to pass the koan - at least if you want to gain his/her verification >> that you have passed the koan. >> >> After you have passed the koan there was at least in my case then some >> rational conversation about the structure of the koan and on what it was >> specifically designed to focus. These discussions were intended to prepare >> you for becoming a teacher. >> >> ...Bill! >> >> --- In [email protected], Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: >> > >> > Bill, >> > >> > There is only one answer or solution to ALL koans. And that is Buddha >> > Nature. So all one has to do in response to any koan is simply to point to >> > anything at all and convincingly bring attention to its Buddha Nature. >> > >> > But as I say repeatedly anything at all can be a koan to get you to that >> > realization. Reality itself is ultimately the ONLY koan.... even in its >> > seemingly most insignificant aspect... >> > >> > Edgar >> > >> > >> > >> > On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:17 PM, Bill! wrote: >> > >> > > Edgar, >> > > >> > > I agree with Joe here. >> > > >> > > All the 'breakthrough' koans (the first ones that are specifically >> > > designed to induce kensho (first experience of Buddha Nature)require a >> > > demonstration rather than an explanation. For example my first koan was >> > > Joshu's MU and my teacher's request was to "BRING me Mu" and "SHOW me >> > > Mu" - certainly not "explain what Joshu's answer 'Mu' means". >> > > >> > > In later koans, although still requiring actions or demonstrations, >> > > there is some room for intellectual discussions with your teacher, >> > > although these discussions are usually focused on just what the koan is >> > > specifically designed to accomplish rather than a discussion on the >> > > meaning of the actual content. >> > > >> > > This has been my experience with koan study anyway, and this was with >> > > two different zen masters - although admittedly the two zen masters were >> > > from the same 'school' and they themselves had a teacher:student >> > > relationship at one time. >> > > >> > > ...Bill! >> > > >> > > --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Edgar, >> > > > >> > > > If YOU take things literally, then that's what YOU do. >> > > > >> > > > Anyone who passes the koan "What is the sound of One Hand?", makes a >> > > > demonstration. It's easy, at that time. After that work. What are you >> > > > all hung up about? >> > > > >> > > > Edgar, note, too: my practice has been not too much on koans; after a >> > > > few, my teacher saw the road ahead for me, and that was not koans. >> > > > Either, "no need", or "no aptitude". >> > > > >> > > > From my point of view, after a point, it was: >> > > > >> > > > "No need for gumdrops along the way". >> > > > >> > > > Yet, all Hail! for folks who go on this way longer that I did. >> > > > >> > > > I took my Doctor's prescription and switched modalities. >> > > > >> > > > Hail! >> > > > >> > > > I'm lucky to have had such a teacher. May you be lucky in this way, in >> > > > some life. >> > > > >> > > > --Joe >> > > > >> > > > > Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > Joe, >> > > > > >> > > > > The point of my reply to your post both of which you obsessively >> > > > > snipped is this >> > > > > >> > > > > Your post went against even the view of koans you are supposed to >> > > > > believe in as an orthodox zennist. >> > > > > >> > > > > You and Bill claim that koans have no solution but are to be >> > > > > discarded in a satori. >> > > > > >> > > > > But instead your post claimed that you not only understood the sound >> > > > > of one hand but could produce it yourself. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thus you don't even understand the naive view of koans Bill does... >> > > > > >> > > > > You are not supposed to take the koan to heart as if it actually >> > > > > expressed something but to discard it... >> > > > > >> > > > > Even Bill knows that... >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
