Agreed... Edgar
On Jun 11, 2013, at 12:21 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: > > I mean any human who has some psychological blindness to parts of their > current reality can benefit from interactions with another person, especially > in tasks where the tendency to fool yourself is a factor. That's why > teachers are generally useful. Your true statement about teachers not being > needed to realize freedom seems to ignore that part of my humanity, the part > that can't handle the truth. I can’t assume you have a tendency to fool > yourself, but I am confident most people do. > > Thanks, > --Chris > 301-270-6524 > On Jun 11, 2013 9:14 AM, "Edgar Owen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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... >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >
