I've been sitting meditation for 15 years on and off. I've always enjoyed reading Buddhist books. Last year I found a neat zendo close to my new place. I have only missed a day of zazen since then. I enjoy the place and I like the master. However there's a doubt I have about the instructions regarding zen books.

The master has told us not to read any books at all, even shobogenzo although she firmly follows his teachings and even quotes him in teisho. The only book she allows reading of is "zen mind beginner's mind" by Shunryu Suzuki.

I asked her about this rule and she stated that I'm supposed to empty my mind in zazen, but books fill it. I understand that reading won't improve my practice. But I feel that reading Dogen does benefit me. I feel that knowing my tradition's history and reasoning connects me to our dharma ancestors and provides context to the practice and its development. I wanted to ask the master how she empties her mind - since she reads a lot of books. But unfortunately the time in dogsan was already up.

Is this firm stance on not reading books normal for your zen traditions? The tradition of the master in question is sanbo zen.

1) Where have you just come from?

When it comes to the Zen tradition, I came mostly from reading books.

I started posting on this forum after reading (and re-reading) Huang Po's The Zen Teaching of Huang Po.

I try to understand Chinese Zen texts on their own terms. I try not to import later or unrelated religious, psychological, or philosophical frameworks onto them. I don't lie about what they say or what I think they say.

I'm not a teacher and I have no special attainment.

2) What's your textual tradition?

I am most familiar with The Zen Teachings of Huang Po.

I've also read The Zen Teachings of Master Lin-chi, Gateless Gate (or Wumen's Checkpoint), Instant Zen, The Recorded Sayings of Layman Pang, The Blue Cliff Record.

I also come here and read what people are writing and, especially, translating.

3) Dharma low tides?

Take responsibility. Read the book. Eat if you're hungry, go to sleep if you're tired.

Since I have already shared some material from the Sayings of Ancient Worthies, I thought I would share the Preface which I think is pretty interesting. And because I know how much everyone enjoys long complicated posts featuring LLM generated translations and little direct exposition.

---

過去如是如是，見在如是如是，未來如是如是。幸自可憐生，無端

黃面老漢拈花瞬目，金色頭陀忍俊脫頥，不覺漏泄。一人傳虗，萬

人傳實，何時而已哉？人根有利鈍，故機語有開斂。鍼砭藥餌，膏

肓頓起，縱橫展拓，太虗不痕。雖古人用過，時無古今。死路活

行，死棊活著，觀照激發，如龍得水。故曰：言語載道之器，雖佛

祖不得而廢也。七佛偈及西天此土三十三傳，枝出派列，莫知其

幾。授受證據，洎夫抑揚示誨，見於傳燈，而多有載不盡者，往往

散落。

異時有頥藏主者，旁蒐廣採，僅得南泉而下二十二家示眾機語。厥

後又得雲門．真淨．佛眼．佛照等數家，總曰古尊宿語。非止乎此

也，據其所搜採而言耳。

夫古人得親故用親，行到故說到。其所說者，如國家兵器，不得已

而用之。從上為人，只貴眼正是。豈末流刻楮畵花，雕蚶鏤蛤，瞎

學者眼，所可同日語。

The past was thus and thus.
The present is thus and thus.
The future will be thus and thus.

Fortunately, it was already pitiable enough on its own — then, for no reason, that old yellow-faced fellow held up a flower and blinked his eyes. The golden-headed ascetic could not suppress a smile and his jaw came loose. Without realizing it, the matter leaked out.

One person transmitted an emptiness; ten thousand people transmitted it as something real. When will it ever stop?

People’s capacities have sharpness and dullness, and so the words used in response to circumstances have openings and closures. Needles, cauteries, medicines, and remedies: with them, even a mortal illness suddenly gets up. Freely extending in every direction, they leave no trace in the great void.

Although the ancients used them, time itself has no ancient or modern. On a dead road, one walks alive. With a dead chess position, one makes a living move. Observation and illumination arouse and activate, like a dragon gaining water.

Therefore it is said: “Words are vessels that carry the Way.” Even the Buddhas and Patriarchs could not discard them.

The verses of the Seven Buddhas, and the thirty-three transmissions from India to this land, branching out into lines and schools — who knows how many there are? The records of transmission and reception, the evidence of realization, and also the suppressions and elevations, the instructions and admonitions, are seen in the Transmission of the Lamp. Yet much of it could not be fully recorded, and often became scattered and lost.

At another time there was a head monk named Yi, who searched widely and gathered broadly. He obtained only the public instructions and encounter-dialogues of twenty-two houses from Nanquan onward. Later, he also obtained several more houses, including Yunmen, Zhenjing, Foyan, and Fozhao. Altogether these were called Sayings of the Ancient Worthies. This was not the limit of the matter; it only refers to what he had managed to search out and collect.

Now, the ancients had personally realized it, and therefore used it personally. They had walked to the place, and therefore spoke from the place.

What they said was like the weapons of a state: used only when there was no other choice. From the beginning, in dealing with people, what they valued was only that the eye be correct.

How could this be spoken of in the same breath as the later degenerates who carve paper leaves, paint flowers, engrave clams and carve shells, blinding the eyes of students?

覺心居士出善女倫，秉烈丈夫志操，不為富貴所障、世相所縻，著

淨名衣，坐空生室，安住正受，動靜提撕，是孰使之然哉？謂頥所

編古尊宿語刊于閩中，而板亦漫矣。兩浙叢林得之惟艱，勇捐己資

鋟梓流通，命禪衲精校重楷，不鄙索序。噫！亦異矣。昔月上女抗

舍利弗發明大涅槃，菴提遮對曼殊室利不生生、不死死義，達磨來

震旦以後，其間善女、等倫、橫機諸大老發明向上者多矣。近世秦

國計氏與夫空室道人皆以鍾鼎家世而為般若眷屬，今覺心則發揮古

宿機語以遺佛種，無二無二分、無別無斷故。

覺心魏氏，紹興丞相文節公孫，余文昌之室。先瑩住林菴虗席，命

慈林解無言者攝。解催請主菴人，覺心著語云：菴主只在菴中，為

甚麼不見？道有又無，道無却有。又不近，又不遠，舉頭鷂子過新

羅。參得著，喫盌麫。餘偈語多有，皆不計較而得，則日用中無非

禪悅法喜之樂矣。併見于此。

旹聖宋咸湻丁卯春清明日，江浙等處明州府阿育王山廣利禪寺住持

沙門物初大觀序。唐宋諸碩師，傳佛心宗，道大德備。室中垂示勘

辨，學者徵拈代別，皆有機語流布寰中久矣。惟傳燈一書，甞賜入

藏。諸師之語，傳燈不能備載者，有賾公藏主別集南泉．趙州．黃

檗．臨濟．雲門．真淨．佛眼．東山二十餘家，總若干卷，題之曰

古尊宿語，實有補於宗門。

The laywoman Juexin came forth from among the ranks of good women, yet she held the fierce resolve and integrity of a great man. She was not obstructed by wealth and rank, nor entangled by worldly appearances. She wore Vimalakīrti’s robe and sat in Subhūti’s room. Abiding peacefully in right absorption, whether active or still, she kept herself alert and lifted up.

Who caused her to be this way?

She said that the Sayings of the Ancient Worthies, compiled by Yi, had been printed in Fujian, but that the printing blocks had already become blurred and worn. In the monasteries of Liangzhe, obtaining the text was very difficult. So she courageously donated her own funds to have new blocks carved and the text circulated. She ordered Chan monks to collate it carefully and recopy it in standard script, and she did not disdain to ask me for a preface.

Ah! This too is remarkable.

In the past, the Maiden Candrottarā challenged Śāriputra and clarified great nirvāṇa. Amṛtā answered Mañjuśrī on the meaning of “the unborn born” and “the undying dead.” After Bodhidharma came to China, among good women and their peers there were many great elders who, with spontaneous functioning, clarified the matter beyond.

In recent times, Lady Ji of Qin-guo and also the Daoist of the Empty Room both came from households of bells and tripods, yet became members of the family of prajñā. Now Juexin brings forth and illuminates the encounter-words of the ancient worthies in order to leave them to the seed of Buddha — because there is no duality, no division into two; no separation, no cutting off.

Juexin is of the Wei clan, a descendant of the Shaoxing-era Chancellor Wenjie, and the wife of Yu Wenchang.

When the ancestral grave-site Lin’an hermitage was vacant, she invited Cilin Xie Wuyan to take charge of it. Xie urged her to invite a resident hermitage-master. Juexin made this saying:

“The hermitage-master is right there in the hermitage. Why is he not seen? Say he exists, and yet he does not. Say he does not exist, and yet he does. He is neither near nor far. Raise your head — a hawk has flown past Silla. If you can investigate and get it, eat a bowl of noodles.”

There are many other verses and sayings of hers. They were all attained without calculation or contrivance. Thus, in daily use, there was nothing that was not the joy of Chan and the delight of Dharma. These are included here as well.

Written on Qingming day in the spring of dingmao, in the Xianchun era of the sacred Song, by the śramaṇa Wuchu Daguan, abbot of Guangli Chan Monastery on Mount Ayuwang, Mingzhou Prefecture, Jiangzhe and other circuits.

The eminent masters of the Tang and Song transmitted the mind-school of the Buddha. Their Way was great and their virtue complete. Their instructions and examinations within the room, and the students’ citations, takings-up, substitutions, and distinctions, all had encounter-words that circulated throughout the world for a long time.

Only the single work Transmission of the Lamp was once granted entry into the canon. But the sayings of the various masters could not be fully included in the Transmission of the Lamp. So the head monk Zegong separately collected more than twenty houses, including Nanquan, Zhaozhou, Huangbo, Linji, Yunmen, Zhenjing, Foyan, and Dongshan, totaling a number of fascicles. He titled it Sayings of the Ancient Worthies. It truly supplements the Chan school.

We are halfway into 2026 and I figured I'd post something like an AMA once again. Maybe AMA is specific to one zen sub, but maybe in other subs a different name might be warranted: "statement of current understanding and request for guidance". How are you all doing? I think last time I finally came to the conclusion that maybe "Perennialism" in some sense is not compatible with Zen, despite the saying "the ten thousand things teach the buddha dharma". A fellow said "I don't think things through / thoroughly", maybe there is something to that, but maybe that is also quite different from being dishonest. Maybe the idea of something like this is to help me think things through a bit better.

Let's see about some basic questions:

1. Where have I come from? (Life Timeline / autobiography / profile)
2. What is my text?
3. What are my current dissatisfactions and priorities in life: life wheel
4. How to deal with dharma low tides?
5. Am I a difficult person, what sorts of challenges have I faced? (My hate / aversions, my loves / attachments)
6. What is Zen?
7. Who is a Zen Master?
8. What is Buddhism?
9. What, if any, is the difference between Zen and Buddhism?
10. What do Buddhists believe?
11. What role, if any, does religious faith play in Zen and/or Buddhism?
12. Who, if anybody, can teach Zen?
13. What is the history of Zen?
14. What about "the elephant in the room"? The four "superusers" and the support mods have for them? Their strange way of talking and their abrasiveness? Me blocking them, or them blocking me?

---

1. Maybe not everything in my biography is relevant to zen or zen subreddits. 🙏🏽 I mod a couple of zen adjacent subreddits. I've been keeping up the tradition of the "Friday night (zen) poetry slam" that originated here, although maybe it's quite different when in a different context. I'm nearly finishing reading Swampland Flowers, and I hope to reread it with a book club soon. I've used it to inspire some poetry, some memes, some AI prompts.

I think in my last AMA I spoke a bit about myself and my experiences in a Soto Zen place. It was fine I guess. Recently I visited a two Tibetan buddhist places, one of them a New Kadampa one, which I was then told is a cult. I've recently gone to a Catholic Mass too.

2. I'm not sure what I'd consider my central text in my cosmovision. I like quite a bit The Tao Te Ching - a Taoist text. I think I've read it quite a few times. There's a phrase I've liked "The great way is open, but people love the twisted mountain paths", something like that. Maybe I too like the "twisted mountain paths".

I think I spoke elsewhere about a joke that I've loved. "Does a cow have Buddha nature? Moo / Mu". I wonder if maybe in China if Wu was maybe the sound of a dog barking. It sounds reasonable close to "woof" in my head at least, to "Au, Au"... Maybe I could say that this joke I commented is my text. A derivation from a koan, something in relation to a koan. I guess I've found the idea in Gateless Gate that it should be a red hot ball in the throat and that we should focus our utmost on the "mu" / "wu" to be quite strange. But it seems, in the joke-form, to fit the understanding of "when you drink water you automatically know if it's cold or warm". The omnipresence of it, the immediacy of it, the transparentness of it.

3. I am in therapy. It's quite interesting to do therapy. Not sure all people do the same kind of therapy, of those that do. Seems to me some CBT (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy) type therapies aren't very open to subjectivity perhaps. Maybe the type I do, Lacanian, is a bit too subjective, too free.

I guess I wish I had more friends. I wish I was loved and was more able to love. Maybe I already am loved quite a bit and I don't notice it too much? Maybe I wish I had some type of success, more responsibilities.

4. I've read often in past AMA's that this question doesn't make sense. It has very weird wording. But maybe it talks about something relevant: redditors are often depressed or antisocial or dealing with a drug habit or gambling addiction or whatever. Maybe being down has a bit to do with all of that, a bit to do with a taboo: you're supposed to be happy. Sadness is forbidden, or almost. I remember some woman telling me "I don't allow myself to feel sad because then I'd break down"...

But I think sometimes people play certain games, or at least that's a way to say it. Being in love for example: it can give you a big high, idealization, a crush. Following your dreams. Doing theater. Singing in karaoke. Being in the spotlight for a while, even if the audience is of a single person, or an empty stadium or room. I'm not entirely sure the highs are worth the lows, I guess, is sort of what I'm saying. Maybe there's something to holding back, at least a tiny bit. Instead of seeking drama and recognizing it as worthwhile, to see small gestures, details, even something like "absences" / "empty" things. I think a breath is something like that, right? Sleeping or meditating. Taking a break to drink some tea. Maybe slightly bigger things: reading a book, cooking for yourself, listening to some music, waiting for a bus to come or to get somewhere.

5. I guess I was a bit of a difficult person in some ways. I was pessimistic, cynical, anti-everything. I guess the tone was vaguely leftist but I guess not in a responsible way, not in a productive way. Maybe not everything needs to be productive too 🙏🏽

I love coffee. I've been avoiding cooking a fair bit. I've been avoiding learning how to stitch. I've been avoiding some online courses. I've been avoiding a bit of writing. I love colored pens. I love candles. I love reading. (If the way avoids love and hate, what does that mean for me?)

6. Zen is a tradition, called Chan originally in China, and as far as I know Dhayana in India. Part of what we know as Chan has to do with the transplantation to a different culture. Mendicancy, asking for alms, maybe wasn't a very Chinese thing, as far as I understand it. The Buddhist ideal of an "order of beggars" then wouldn't have worked too well, without some further work.

The way I understand it, Zen has to do with this idea of finding "God" / something universal, "dharma" / the buddha dharma: a sort of global truth. Finding it, partly or in full, is called "enlightenment". I quite like how Foyan describes it: he had unfinished business, he had a mass of doubt that was slowly worked away. Doing that work, that business, that is zen.

7. Who is a Zen master? I'm not really sure. I think we use the term zen master in the west perhaps a little differently than the original tradition. In the text I've seen people write "the master", but not "the zen master", and I'm not entirely sure if this was not properly an issue of the hierarchy of the time, rather than a title of achievement. Was a leader of a monastery, an abbot for example, called a master? But yeah, other than this response with a question of my own I don't claim to know. I know plenty of people are called zen masters by a lot of people. I myself find it quite strange. Deshan for example instead of calling Bodhidharma a zen master, he calls him "A minion from hell" I think. So it seems people are allowed to abuse zen masters.

8. Buddhism as I understand it, is the Buddha dharma, the teaching of the buddha. Not all schools that follow the Buddha's teachings are derived mythically from Bodhidharma. Some schools seem even a bit strange to me: like the Tibetan crazy wisdom or their Vajrayana idea of "gurus".

9. As far as I know there are wild differences between different schools of Buddhism. So I would imagine that Zen can count as one Buddhism, among many, all different amongst themselves. But as far as I know a western idea that Zen is different, that it amounts to a "science of mind", that can be abstracted from the religion, that can be secular or empty of "superstitions like rebirth": that's all bullshit. There are more things in common with other schools of Buddhism than you'd think. (This talking of ancient chinese Chan, never mind the schools that continue them) I guess, I imagine, the bigger difference is with "Secular Buddhism", "Western Buddhism".

10. Buddhists believe in the 3 or 4 seals, I think is the best definition I've seen. It's a test to see if a text can be classified as Buddhist. I think people often think of the four noble truths and the eightfold path as the definition of Buddhism and Buddhist beliefs, but as far as I know these are actually quoted in very few sutras.

From Wikipedia:

>Everything conditioned is impermanent.
Everything influenced by delusion is suffering.
All things are empty and selfless.
Nirvana is peace

11. What work is the word "religious" doing? Is "Faith" different from religious "faith"? "Faith in heart-mind" is a famous poem, "Either doubt or faith, if they're complete, will get you to enlightenment" I think is my half remembered quote from Foyan. Maybe for me Zen counts as a religion, yeah, a spirituality, an organized tradition. So yeah, I'd call Faith in the buddha dharma as "religious faith", sure.

Maybe a different question would be "what part does religiosity play in zen?". I remember I replied I think to ThisKir regarding ritual. "Ritual" seems very synonymous to me to "religiosity. I quoted a zen master being questioned about why he bowed to the Buddha statue. I quoted the very concept of a "patchrobed monk" as a ritualized thing. I don't think anybody took me up on my argument.

12. I sometimes worry a bit about talking about zen being in some way teaching zen. Maybe all of us, if we talk about zen enough, will be someone's first "teacher" in some way, the first time someone hears about zen. I guess to a great extent teaching should come from actual maturity in the path. Actually knowing what you're talking about. But I guess for the most part I actually don't worry too much about whether teachers should be teaching. The Buddha spoke of how you should test out for yourself, right? Not believe in stuff because the Buddha said it, and instead because you see for yourself. I guess that's the main thing, whether people are saying something like "I am right, follow me" or whether it's less ego-based.

13. I wanted to use this question to talk about something I believe. As far as I know scholars don't believe the koans were historical, instead they believe the stories to be a bit of myth, a bit of rumor, hearsay. I doubt a bit the idea that there is a lineage all the way back to the original Buddha. I doubt the idea that any of the lineages to back to Boddhidharma. I think there's one story about Hakuin maybe, some guy being granted the bowl and the robe and having to leave in the middle of the night: seems a bit suspicious to me. I think I read somewhere that maybe this had to do with competing schools. We generally hear the story of the winners, of the survivors. I don't mind too much if what we have to work with are myths, but maybe I don't believe too much this idea of an unbroken chain.

14. I love to quote Eric Kow https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/wiki/words/

>Are you speaking the same language? “Buddhism” to one person may mean something entirely different to another person… the same goes for general words like “religion”

>Does it need rehashing? These are ongoing and lengthy debates in the Zen and Buddhist communities, and much has already been said on the matter from all sides of the issue… (do you really have to add your piece too?)

>Do you want to play the game? Not everybody will cooperate with you to work from a common vocabulary — they may insist on using a word one way knowing full well you mean it another way. Some people may use loaded language (eg. “religion”) as a provocation. Don't let them phase you! It's just their game.

>If you find yourself trapped in semantic quicksand, just relax, roll your eyes and move on… life is too short to get sucked into a tedious discussion about whether something is another thing…

>Luopu said: "One who has only understood himself and has not yet clarified the eye of objective reality is someone who has only one eye."

>If you want both eyes to be perfectly clear, you must not dwell in the realms of the body or mind and not get involved in myriad circumstances.

What are these two eyes? I'm thinking about this a lot, seems important not to be missing one eye and I'm not always sure if I am.

• Objective reality: when my meaning is meant to do work on the Other, meaning is fixed because it is shared: "pass the red brick" means "pass the red brick."
• Self knowledge: when my meaning is meant to do work on myself, meaning is fecund because it is private: "pass the red brick" means "mine was a difficult childhood."

(Wittgenstein, sorry.)

"Myself" might mean any closed system. Two people, 20 people, become one great cyclopic "I" when their discourse is sufficiently isolated from the Other.

Sharing meaning with someone new is the death of something that grew in private. "Don't build your cart with the barn doors closed." If you must, fair warning: the outside finds a way in. Don't forget it's just a cart, it is not yourself: otherwise you feel like you might die, opening the doors.

Or if I'm looking at another person, trying to understand them.

• "I examine my interior: I know exactly what you are, you're a disease afflicting an ordinary person." Dwelling in the realms of body and mind: drinks are on me.
• "I examine your exterior: I know exactly what you are, you're one of those and I'm one of these." Getting involved in the myriad circumstances: drinks are on you.

(I mostly quit drinking about 4 years ago, at the discouragement of a friend.)

(Drink too much, you start seeing double. Just say "no." Both eyes perfectly clear.)

______________________________________________________

For good measure, the case itself:

>A rajah of an east Indian country invited the twenty-seventh Buddhist patriarch Prajnatara to a feast. The rajah asked him: "Why don't you read scriptures?"

The patriarch said: "This poor wayfarer doesn't dwell in the realms of the body or mind when breathing in, doesn't get involved in myriad circumstances when breathing out -- I always reiterate such a scripture, hundreds, thousands, millions of scrolls.

The dwelling and involvement is the drunkenness, says Prajnatara: we got two eyes for a reason. Breathe in with one eye, breathe out with the other eye.

From Gemini:

>The central dispute between Analytic and Continental philosophy lies in their core methodologies and scope. Analytic philosophers prioritize clarity, logic, and scientific rigor, breaking problems down into components. Continental philosophers favor speculative synthesis, addressing large humanistic and historical questions while often utilizing dense, interpretive prose.

Zen is indisputably a tradition that favors clarity, logic, and a sort of scientific rigor in addressing people's problems. Just look at Huangbo. Or Linji. Or even Bankei. It rejects speculation and subjective interpretations of internal experiences as a waste of time; which raises the intriguing question of...how much more pre-requisite knowledge would students trained in the methodologies of analytic philosophy need before taking a college course on Zen?

I'm not sure, but it certainly seems like people who are oriented towards continental philosophy would first need the training that an analytic philosophy affords before they can start studying Zen professionally. The necessity of studying continental philosophy doesn't seem to be true for anyone.

I think that's what makes Zen so hard for a lot of even well-meaning people whose education had Continental approaches as an unexamined background radiation. Zen Masters are just so ruthless in demonstrating enlightenment in face of no-holds-barred Zen inquisitions. I mean seriously...

If you can't answer, dead. If you can't prove Mind is Buddha, dead. If you can't converse across Zen generations, dead. If you can't keep the precepts, dead.

You get the idea.

The personal verification-and-attesting of enlightenment is ultimately where Zen parts ways with philosophical methodologies, but unless someone can logically parse a Zen argument for themselves, they would never get to that part of the conversation in the first place.

From Bankei:

>Until you've examined your own self, however much I tell you about how things look, you won't be recognizing it, seeing it, or settling it for yourself, so you won't be convinced.

Nobody sees Buddha by making stuff up.

A Zen Trap: A trap in the Zen tradition is an event or an interaction in which conditions arise that invite self-deception that are then made apparent as being such.

Intentional or not intentional? "Who is setting this trap?"

Self-deception is exactly what it says it is: it is someone that decieves themselves. This suggests that traps are essentially made and sprung by the people who spend time around and talking to Zen Masters and not the Zen Masters themselves. If a Zen Master intentionally traps someone, how can it be said that it wasn't the Zen Master that was being deceptive?

However, at the same time, it is definitely possible that Zen Masters know when someone they are talking to have decieved themselves. Thus, all they need to do is pull the rug out from under them. The question is, is that act of pulling the rug an intentional thing, or is it simply something that naturally happens from their own sincerity?

Here is what I believe to be a textbook example of a trap:

A monk asked, "What is 'the ultimate word'?"
Zhao Zhou coughed.
The monk said, "That's it, isn't it?"
Zhao Zhou said, "Alas, they won't even let me cough."

What do we understand about Zen Masters? For one thing, they have an obligation to answer. This makes cases like this very interesting. As I said in my other post, I don't think Zen Masters actually believe they are obligated to do anything. What is hilarious to me is that even when they might ignore any idea of an obligation to answer, everyone around them still finds a way to explain how what they did was an answer. That's just so funny... am I alone in thinking that's funny?

So, we come to this case. A monk asks for the ultimate. The master coughs.

This fricken monk thinks the cough means something! And I know, I know, many of you reading this probably think so, too. But I'm going to ask you to take one step back and just appreciate how ridiculous that is. How many times have you heard people cough in your day to day life, and thought: this right here is the ultimate truth? The ultimate truth of what?? Pneumonia??

But nevertheless the poor monk saw something really immense in that cough. But just look at Zhao Zhou! What do you see? "They won't let me cough!" Does this seem like someone who was trying to communicate anything ultimate? Nope. Just a cough.

What happened, then, to the monk when he heard Zhao Zhou's answer? Something died in him. He reached for the Great Answer to Reality just to be RKOed by banality. This right here was what Zhao Zhou constantly did to people. But, again, who set the trap?

All he did was cough!

> Nan Quan came to speak to the monks. The master asked, "Bright or dark?"
Nan Quan returned to his room.
The master left the hall and said, "At one question of mine that old priest was forced into silence and could not answer."
The head monk said, "Don't say that he was silent. It is only that you didn't understand."
The master struck him and said, "Actually, this blow should have been given to that old fool Nan Quan himself."

Recorded Sayings of Zhao Zhou Case 2

This will be my second time doing a run down of this case.

The first time was last year on the Zen Talking podcast, where the interpretation presented to me was that "bright or dark" was an inquisition on the part of Zhou Zhoa on whether or not Nan Quan was enlightened.

That seems simple and clear enough. Brightness of mind being enlightened makes sense given the idea of a mind emitting "light" once there is transmission.

James Green's interpretation is that brightness is talking about differentiation and darkness is about sameness. Zhao Zhou is thus asking Nan Quan which side he is going to teach about. I'm skeptical of this because sameness and differentiation are not the only things a Zen Master might talk about.

I am going to propose a new hypothesis as to the meaning of "bright" and "dark", but before I do that, there are certain premises that I want to establish.

1. Zen Masters are ordinary people with ordinary minds.
2. Part of being a Zen Master is the ability to reject poison.
3. Bare with me on this one: unenlightened people that see someone as enlightened, that is having a mind that is foreign to them and unordinary, is a poison to everyone involved. I believe you can find in many places in the record Zen Masters rejecting the poison that is the idea of their own enlightenment as seen by others. They do this by being completely ordinary and doing ordinary things.

With premise 3, which is something I really want to press hard about because I genuinely believe it is important for understanding Zen Masters and the record in general, it is important to understand that Zen masters are ordinary people that are ruthlessly commited to being ordinary. I believe then that there is a plight to being a Zen Master which is that while they are constantly being ordinary they are also constantly surrounded by people treating them as holy figures. They are people of no rank that are constantly being upheld by others.

Thus, that means given the oppurtunity they often reject their own enlightened image in front of students. They reject their obligation of answering. (I have heard that Nan Quan leaving is an answer. I am going to make the case that that isn't it.) They reject the precepts. (Killed cat).

My argument is that after hearing the question "bright or dark", Nan Quan chose darkness. But not as an answer to Zhao Zhou, but as treatment to his own mind.

Nan Quan is essentially showing "As an enlightened master you know I must answer, but if I don't answer, then what does that make me?" He gets up and leaves. Everyone of course sees that as an answer(except the one with an eye..). But I will plant my stake and say that when a Zen Master does this they are purposely not answering and denying their obligation. It is an act of rejecting poison. Zen Masters must answer. I didn't answer. Does that mean people will no longer view me as a foreign entity and instead as an equal, which is the only healthy type of relationship that exists?

To better explain why being in the position of a Zen Master can be poisonous, we can easily see how fame and exceptionalism impacts celebrities. How many of them become addicts and end up with a ruined mental health? The wise ones are the ones that reject the poison of fame by having strict privacy standards and personally making an effort to be ordinary. It is evident that in all walks of human life, being ordinary is a must when it comes to living a healthy life.

So, what happens when you are met with being unordinary? What happens when everyone sees a super star? You can easily see how that is brightness. You are a star. You are a super hero. You are special and have extremely rare talents.

This is a poison that people constantly chase and gobble up. Zen Masters know better. And how do they take care of themselves in the face of this?

They choose darkness.

Think of it like a self-talk into reality. "I am not a Zen Master. I am not enlightened." After all these are all human constructs. Who decided to call it "enlightenment"? How do I know I didn't experience something different than the Buddha? A Zen Masters is someone who is capable of washing away their own exceptionalism and has the wisdom to desire to do so. Thoughts arise and they say "No." to them. That's the down button.

But they are also capable of choosing brightness. Which is what Zhao Zhou did by demonstrating his virtuosity. I genuinely think that in this case we are witnessing someone reaching for victory and someone wanting defeat. The big question is: is Zhao Zhou purposely relieving Nan Quan of duty? Now that's very interesting. OR even better. Nan Quan chooses darkness (death) and Zhao Zhou obliges by killing him. Maybe they were acting as a team. Not competitors.

I believe bright or dark is therefore a function of mind that Zen Masters know how to use like an elevator. And the point of the elevator is good mental health and your ability to change in order to cross barriers and achieve your goals.

Acknowledging that there has never been an undergraduate or graduate degree in Zen in Western history, I still insist that these enlightenment cases should be common knowledge to anybody that claims a familiarity with the subject of Zen.

But these enlightenment cases point to the kind of personal issues that each Zen Master had to overcome.

1. Zhaozhou too smart

2. Juzhi insufficient faith

3. Dongshan not taking responsibility

4. Baizhang thought he knew

5. Deshan assumed knowledge needed

6. Linji too much self esteem

7. Xuefeng believed in discipline

8. Xiangyan relied on intellectualization

If you know any of these enlightenment cases feel free to dispute me.

But in making this list, I thought about how these were actual real people, not like the mythological supernatural figures in the Bible or the sutras. Zen Masters were real people who experienced a real life enlightenment.

Thinking about them before they were enlightened, seeing them as people before enlightenment, suggests a possible change in perception for some people. Perhaps this is one way to help people understand that these are not irrefutable Moses figures, not Messiahs, but people from a different culture and way of life that have more in common with inventors than they do with religious leaders. Enlightenment is much more like inventing something new than it is like receiving stone tablets, or finding secret knowledge.

www.reddit.com/r/zen/wiki/getstarted is about actual recorded history. That's the thing here, recorded history of real people.

Many come to this forum from Buddhist theosophy or new age 1900s gurus. What is the role of history playing in those other conversations? What happens when we meet people that cannot create a wiki for their ideas and their beliefs and their tradition?

As a minor segue, I was having a debate with someone yesterday about the nature of religious experience.

My argument was based on the television show *Nobody Wants This*, specifically, a scene from the first season when the couple meets in a bar for her first Shabbat, and a scene from the last episode of the second season where she comes to realize that a Jewish identity is something that comes from your heart.

I argue that this gives us a model for one of three different types of religious identity: Shared traditions of the heart. The two other models I proposed were shared enemies (e.g. christian nationalism), shared assertions (e.g. Catholicism).

How do we apply these models in conversations we have with people? What models do we use instead? What's the space between reasonable explanations and blank tolerance for every sort of claim.

赵州录 【问：“如何是大阐提人？”师云：“老僧答你还信否？”云：“和尚重言，那敢不信。”师云：“觅个阐提人难得。”】

>Someone asked, "what are icchantikas?" > >The teacher asked in return, "If I answer you, would you believe me?" > >The questioner responded, "your words demand to be listened to." > >The teacher sighed, "icchantikas are so hard to find." > >- (Zhao Zhou (Joshu))

At one time I thought all turtles were trapped in their shells like some kind of hermit lizards. Basically otakus who are unwilling to abandon their homes and go forth, retreating inside at any sign of threat.

I've had this fantasy of freeing them by cracking them up, breaking their shells and pulling them out into the sun.

Then I realized there is no turtle without its shell, in fact, the shell is the turtle, no separation.

Then I look back at all those turtles I banged open, and I facepalm, the original sound of one hand clapping.

I've once had a bald man telling me, that the notion there exist a "someone" reading this, should be completely given up like a long fantasy.

Which is completely ridiculous and anti-logical. I've given up on thinking my self out of this.

Now the good news is, there are dispensations, of which, zen is one.

But me not smarty like the guys who gangs on me with wooden swords. (use real ones you cowards!)

So instead I am heading west, to The Pure Land of Amitabha Buddha.

I don't know about you, but I have arguments that run moments and years and decades with friends and family members. When we meet, each of us will share new data, new studies, new papers and books. Sometimes people change sides. Sometimes the arguments go back through the historical records, sometimes forward into modern phenomena like AI.

One of these old arguments started up again yesterday:

Why bother with Zen?

Here are the branches that the argument moves back and forth between (and the relevant recent data points:

1. What is mental illness?

   • European Union in studies on Medicalizing Social and Material Hardship
   • Poverty is not depression, but is it spiritual suffering?
   • If we treat chemical imbalances in the brain, is there really any other problem?

2. What is suffering?

   • What was Buddhist suffering from during his identity crisis regarding death, disease, and infirmity?
   • Philosophers and churches have long tried to answer the questions that are the core of many kinds of spiritual suffering: Who am I? What is good? How should I behave? When are we in history? Where are the rewards to be found?

3. Does Zen enlightenment matter?

   • Keep in mind that there is no other enlightenment in any culture or any tradition. This is just a historical reality. Zen Master Buddha is the historical starting point for every conversation about enlightenment in the East and West.
   • If you keep the five lay precepts, do you really need enlightenment to have a satisfying and happy life?
   • Does the sacred and holy matter at the end of the day to people who need food shelter and family?
   • Also keep in mind that for a thousand years in China, Zen communes fed, housed, clothed, and familied **more people than Zen communes enlightened**. These people or the context that produced every Zen master.

Ask a Zen Master

Bork of Serenity Case 12

地藏問脩山主。甚處來。

“Dizang asked Head Monk Xiu, ‘From what place have you come?’”

脩雲。南方來。

“Xiu said, ‘I have come from the South.’”

藏雲。南方近日佛法如何。

“Dizang said, ‘Recently, how is the Buddha-dharma in the South?’”

脩雲。商量浩浩地。

“Xiu said, ‘Discussion is vast and overflowing.’”

藏雲。爭如我這裏種田博飯喫。

“Dizang said, ‘How could that compare with here, where I plant fields to get rice to eat?’”

脩雲。爭奈三界何。

“Xiu said, ‘What can be done about the three realms?’”

藏雲。爾喚甚麼作三界。

“Dizang said, ‘What do you call the three realms?’”

three realms

In keeping and within the context of this conversation here's a note on the three realms.

Sense realm- physical needs.

Refined realm - needs understood by concept

Formless realm - non-conceptual needs.

too long, didn't read?

We talk about first-world problems versus third-world problems, and certainly the planting of rice is an addressing of a third-world problem. If you live in a society that throws away food, you have a fundamentally different perspective than if you live in a society that doesn't have enough food.

But clearly we cannot say that food is all that matters, that having given food no other questions arise.

The dilemma about the difference in the questions that arise for starving people versus people who throw away food versus people with mental health issues, all play a part in this question of why bother with Zen.

Sun Face Buddha, Moon Face Buddha
What kind of people were the Ancient Emperors?
For twenty years I have suffered bitterly;
How many times I have gone down into the Blue Dragon's cave for you!
This distress is worth recounting;
Clear-eyed patchrobed monks should not take it lightly.

On June 6th, 1944, somewhere around 300,000 Allied troops landed in Normandy, France, on a mission to liberate Western Europe from Nazi rule.

At the time, somewhere in the French countryside and in a Catholic monastery in Paris hid my Jewish grandparents who were only small children at the time.

On July 16th and 17th, 1942, their parents, uncles, and aunts, my family, were rallied in a stadium in Paris and loaded into trucks that carried them to trains that then carried most of them to Auschwitz to be immediately executed. This event is known as La Ralph du Vel' d'Hiv.

I was around 6 years old when my grandparents started teaching me about the holocaust. It was my first exposure to moral outrage. I became obsessed with understanding how such a thing could happen. The reality of Nazism and the holocaust was a constant barrier to understanding life and people in general. It seemed self-evident that evil existed, and that I should beware of it in others, and even myself. The only thing that made sense as a child was that they were evil monsters. Over time, I began to understand the cold hard truth: they were all too human, and that whatever guided them to such horror could guide me if I followed my worst impulses.

But the Nazis aren't really the people that shaped or defined me.

On the night of June 5th, 1944, American paratroopers set out to fly passed enemy defenses and neutralize various objectives on the western flank of the invasion.

One of those paratroopers was Lieutenant Richard Winters. I never met him, but it is him and those like him of which I owe my life to. For if it wasn't for what they did, my grandparents could very well have been eventually found and killed.

Picture this, or at least try to: you are staring out of an open door frame thousands of feet above ground. There is a red light to your right signaling you to wait. Outside the window you see and feel massive explosions setting off not too far away. In front of you, you see another plane that is carrying the rest of your company.

It gets hit. And you witness your fellow soldiers burn alive before they crash down into the ground.

You then see a green light.

And you jump.

You jump straight into hell, misery, and death.

You have fear, but your courage is stronger.

And in the deep darkness of hell is where you fight the most crucial battle.

So, who is Embers? What is he doing here?

I'm a child who dreams of being a warrior. I want to return the favor, or in a way fight the same mission as Richard Winters was fighting: which is whatever must be done for humanity's sake.

Why Zen?

Because Zen isn't about preaching and declaring what you must do to save yourself.

First and foremost, it is about meeting people where they are and saying "I have been here before, and I know the way out."

Zen Masters make a commitment to going into hell to meet people. And while I have no idea if I am even close to being a Zen Master, I know hell. And I got out. And while hell is still out there for people, I have something to do.

The Blue Dragon's cave is where I make my living. Not because I want to be a hero, but because there is nothing like sharing light with those who are in utter darkness.

And by my life or death, this light I have found will not stand idle and unconcerned.

It's simply not how I was raised.

[supprimé]