i can understand what chris is saying..are you perhaps too hard wired edgar?.... merle 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... >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > >
