BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 62

[Jundo]

Case 61 never ends, and so we jump to Case 62, Beiko's No Enlightenment ...

Another Koan which plays on Enlightenment as so ever present and intimate that there is no place to "go" and nothing to "attain" ...

... and yet, if one fails to realize (in heart and mind) and realize (make real in how one lives) this fact, one is ever distant with far to go and much yet to attain ...

As mentioned in the Preface to the Assembly, Bodhidharma told Emperor Wu ...

:"What is the highest meaning of the holy truths?" asks the emperor. Bodhidharma says: "Vast emptiness, nothing holy"
The angry monarch asks: "Who is facing me?"Bodhidharma answers: "I don't know"

But such "I don't know" is often the most Intimate Knowing! For if you create a "some thing" to know, or to obtain, or place to go, then you are creating distance, splitting this from that, here from there, you from all things ... the second level. What fully transcends and holds any and all levels, first second or otherwise?!

But so many people don't yet know this "don't know!" They are lost in the "not knowing" that is just ignorance, not the "not knowing" that is Enlightenment and most Intimate!

The citation of Vimalakirti and Manjushri may be to this ...

Then, the Licchavi Vimalakirti saw the crown prince Manjusri and addressed him thus: "Manjusri! Welcome, Manjusri! You are very welcome! There you are, without any coming. You appear, without any seeing. You are heard, without any hearing."

Manjusri declared, "Householder, it is as you say. Who comes, finally comes not. Who goes, finally goes not. Why? Who comes is not known to come. Who goes is not known to go. Who appears is finally not to be seen.

...

When the bodhisattvas had given their explanations, they all addressed the crown prince Manjusri: "Manjusri, what is the bodhisattva's entrance into nonduality?"

Manjusri replied, "Good sirs, you have all spoken well. Nevertheless, all your explanations are themselves dualistic. To know no one teaching, to express nothing, to say nothing, to explain nothing, to announce nothing, to indicate nothing, and to designate nothing - that is the entrance into nonduality."

Then the crown prince Manjusri said to the Licchavi Vimalakirti, "We have all given our own teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the entrance into the principle of nonduality!"

Thereupon, the Licchavi Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.

The crown prince Manjusri applauded the Licchavi Vimalakirti: "Excellent! Excellent, noble sir! This is indeed the entrance into the nonduality of the bodhisattvas. Here there is no use for syllables, sounds, and ideas."

http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religio...imalakirti.htm

No use for syllables, sounds, and ideas ... yet some syllables, sounds and ideas express ignorance, and some (like all the words of Vimalakirti and Manjushri above) sing of Wisdom! This Great Silence is not necessarily a matter of quiet or noise, mouth open or mouth closed. Here are some Wise syllables, sounds, and ideas from Dogen, for example: Dogen comments on today's Koan in Shobogenzo Daigo (Great Realization). His version reads ...

Master Keichō Beiyu has a monk ask Kyōzan, “Does even a person of the present moment rely upon realization, or not?” Kyōzan says, “Realization is not nonexistent, but how can it help falling into the [second head]”

[Dogen:] “The present moment” of which he speaks is the now of every person. Although [instances of] “causing ourselves to think of the past, the present, and the future” occur in thousands and tens of thousands, even they are present moments, are now. The state of each person is inevitably the present moment. ...

“Do we rely upon realization, or not?” We must investigate these words quietly; we should replace our heart with them and replace our brain with them. Recent [shaven-headed dolts] in the great kingdom of Song [in China] say, “To realize the truth is the original aim,” and, so saying, they vainly wait for realization. ... The present words “Do we rely upon realization, or not?” neither say that realization does not exist, nor say that it exists, nor say that it comes: they say “Do we rely on it, or not?” They are akin to asserting that the realization of a person of the present moment, somehow, has already been realized. If we speak, for example, of attaining realization, it sounds as if [realization] did not used to exist. If we speak of realization having come, it sounds as if that realization used to exist elsewhere. If we speak of having become realization, it sounds as if realization has a beginning. ...

http://21dzk.l.u-tokyo.ac.jp/BDK/bdk...kwcs=50&lim=50

Byakuren Judith Ragir, a Teacher in the Katagiri Lineage, has this comment on "second level", which Okumura Roshi has rendered as "second head" ...

In finishing the fascicle, we come back to Dogen’s original question when he first went to China. If everything is Buddha or imbued with realization, why practice? or why try this hard to realize the truth? Or in other words: Do people today still need realization or not? Can we use the whole treatise on “delusion and enlightenment are one” to support a side that says we don’t need to realize the dharmakaya? Yangshan [Kyozan] said, “It is not that
there is no realization, but what should we do about falling into the second head? In this imagery, the first head is the head of realization, which is completely quiet, still and beyond discrimination. We could say, the second head is the head of discursive thinking and duality. ... The first head and the second head dance with each other intimately.

Dogen writes [in Daigo]:
“It means that the second head is satori. To mention ’the second head’ is like saying ‘Do
we become satori?’ ‘Do we attain satori?’ It means that saying either ‘to become’ or ‘it
is coming’ is satori. Therefore, although it seems that Yangshan [Kyozan] regrets falling into the
second head, he says that there is no second head (that is separate from the first head.)
The second head made out of satori is, simultaneously the true second head. Therefore,
even though it is the second head, or even the hundredth or thousandth head, it is nothing
other than satori.”

Dogen doesn’t suffer from the fear of falling into the second head. He includes the second head in enlightenment. He brings all of who we are: the present, the past, and the future selves together; he brings our darkness and our light together, into the essence of any given moment.

http://www.judithragir.org/downloads...draft-A.v2.pdf

Gassho, J

[Mp]

Thank you Jundo ... =)

Gassho
Shingen

s@today

[Jishin]

Is there Enlightenment?

If you say yes, then there is. If you say no, then there is not. But be careful. If you hang on to the idea, then you will be hanged from a tall tree by Dukka.

Now, what is enlightenment? It's whatever your mind wants it to be. I personally think it is 100% BS (at this moment - subject to change in five seconds). Why? If you come real close to me I will slap you real hard and show it to you.


Bodhidharma told Emperor Wu ...

"What is the highest meaning of the holy truths?" asks the emperor. Bodhidharma says: "Vast emptiness, nothing holy"
The angry monarch asks: "Who is facing me?"Bodhidharma answers: "I don't know"

Bodhidharma had a a big mouth and knew too much. He opened his mouth and said so himself. He could have slapped the Emperor and this would have been a memorable teaching about true emptiness.


I don't know what the point of this Koan is. It doesn't say anything. (All koans are about me since everything in this entire universe originates in my mind and my mind alone).

Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_

[Risho]

I think this koan is getting into the depths. I in no way can do this koan any justice with words, but it reminds me of a couple of other texts I've come across; for example, the logic in the diamond sutra. Those Greg Fain talks from San Fran Zen center are sinking in;

“Subhuti replied, “No, indeed, Bhagavan, the Tathagata cannot be seen by means of the possession of attributes. And why not? Bhagavan, what the Tathagata says is the possession of attributes is no possession of attributes.”
*
This having been said, the Buddha told the venerable Subhuti, “Since the possession of attributes is an illusion, Subhuti, and no possession of attributes is no illusion, by means of attributes that are no attributes the Tathagata can, indeed, be seen.”

Excerpt From: Pine, Red. “The Diamond Sutra"

I mean wow!

Or this famous story

"This refers to a dialogue between Huai-rang and his teacher, the Sixth Ancestor, Hui Neng, or Daikan Eno Daiosho. After Huai-rang had already been practicing for some time, and his practice was fairly mature, he met Hui Neng. During their first meeting, Hui Neng asked, "Where are you from?" Huai-rang replied, "From Mt. Song." Hui Neng asked, "Who is it that thus comes?" referring to original nature. But Huai-rang didn’t have a response, and he continued practicing for eight years, when one day he had an insight. He went to Hui Neng to respond to the question, "Who is it that thus comes? saying, "Speaking about it won’t hit the mark." (or any explanation misses it.) Hui Neng then asked, If so, is there practice and enlightenment? Or "Is ... (original nature) contingent upon practice and realization? And Huai-rang replied, "It is not that there is no practice and realization, it’s just that they cannot be defiled." In Zen the word "defiled" refers to duality, so this means that practice and enlightenment aren’t stained by dualistic separation. Hui Neng has the last word saying, "It’s just this non-defilement (or non-duality of practice and enlightenment) that all buddha ancestors maintain."". This is copied from this talk: http://www.chzc.org/pat50.htm

I dont know what it is, but that statement "It is not that there is no practice and realization, it's just that they cannot be defiled." It has always just struck me, and I love it. Even before I had an idea of what it was pointing to, I really love it.

I think this is meant to get us out of our comfort zones. Zen isnt about our comfort; I feel it demands action. Practice is action, giving, helping. It doesnt end.

I really enjoy practice, but theres the enjoyment I had when this was new and having a zafu was cool and the enjoyment that comes when just practicing to practice, sitting through the ups and downs, practicing the big G gratitude that goes beyond being thankful for things that meet our expectations but being thankful.. Just being thankful --> this is one of my favorite teachings from Jundo. It's also something I fail at; but thats all part of it.

In his commentary, Wick says we can get stuck in our little Zen box. But the road to nirvana has no map. That just invigorates me, and thats why I love this practice. It has no map because this now is alive and is new. No one can live my life or practice Zen for me. I have to learn but ultimately apply the teachings; theres something very enjoyable and exciting about that.

Gassho

Risho
-sattoday

[Jishin]

Hi,

I think that whatever is done on the cushion or talked about ultimately is worthless if it does nothing to help others. It needs to be made real by action (practice-enlightenment).

I talk a big game but in fact I am super deluded. But I know I am deluded and this is helpful. The "Don't Know" enlightenment answer (beginners mind) is a good answer but it still misses the mark. When talking about enlightenment or anything, duality is formed, irrespective of Dogen's rice cake painting does feed hungry bellies after all. He still has to explain with words why this is so and this creates duality (a rice cake painting). Shove a rice cake painting down an infants belly and see if it satisfies his hunger. Ask an infant about rice cakes and he will show you truth. That said, all the Buddhas are full of shit. If your lips are moving, delusions are spewed, Dogen included.

FOUR VOWS:

To save all sentient beings, though beings numberless

To transform all delusions, though delusions inexhaustible

To perceive Reality, though Reality is boundless

To attain the Enlightened Way, a Way non-attainable...

If it's not then it does not exist. Why fuss about it. It just another man made worthless thought.

If you tell me you are enlightened, I say you are full of shit. I don't care who you are. There is no such thing.

If tell me you just are, anything and everything that you can or can not think with no distinctions made then I think you are on to something. But again, why talk about all this garbage? Talking about Buddhism and Zen specifically is distasteful. Almost like talking about money in my view. You have to but really feel better by not doing it.

Final verdict: It's ok to talk about it, but not too much and only to the point that it leads to ethical action. Now I realize that Jundo has to talk a lot about it to people who are new to it but after a while it pisses me off. Quit acting dumb and I will quit acting dumb. Mirror mind.

Chop wood, carry water (if it helps others) and drink tea if it helps others. I don't even mind if you have one or two beers in the process even though I am strongly opposed to alcohol. If it lets you relax and recharge a little and then you feel like helping others, I guess it's ok.

To state it again: I am probably one of the most deluded people at treeleaf but at least I know so. How about you? I hope you know this too in your bones. If you don't, there is no hope for you.

My 2 cents.

Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_

[Risho]

Me? I'm enlightened. hahahahaha Really good points Jishin. I agree with you! Sometimes, I get caught up in the words, but what good is it if it does not help?

As I was sitting zazen this morning, this koan hit me again. The second level. I was in the "second level", chasing some thought about work or some meaningless ego-drama, but that is so powerful to realize that, to see the blender of thoughts spinning (to steal a Jundo metaphor. lol )

What came to me was that this is about the Middle Way. I came to Zen with my normal way of thinking; I mean it's the way I think in the conventional world. I want this or that out of this. I want to be compassionate or enlightened, whatever that means.

But the conventional way of thinking pits "is" against "is not". And that's one of our problems. Why? This leads to grasping and suffering. Whereas I think Zen is a practice of slowly accepting reality (not blind acceptance -- rather active and engaged acceptance). This acceptance (probably more of a big "A" Acceptance) relieves suffering because it shows us where we are grasping. It shows us not to stop our thoughts; we don't try to suppress anything. Similarly the precepts, which are also a form of zazen, or the Four Bodhisattva Vows that Jishin wrote about; those are zazen too. They are all expressions of zazen.

If we look at the precepts from a dualistic mind, they are restrictive, but that's not it. It's how I think we all initially come to them, like everything in this practice. One of the precepts about anger comes to mind. Anger, for example, is a human trait. I don't think we need to stop being human. I think if we are angry just be angry, which is much different than how I get angry, when I feed the anger with what-if's and mental drama, etc. I think letting be and letting go, approaching anger like that without adding anything is the middle way, and it's very tricky. It's very subtle. The dharma is subtle and mysterious.

ok, so I'm getting too wordy, but my point is that emptiness and the middle way are tricky to talk about. Our language is based on convention, and so it is (to steal from Computer Science) boolean based. It talks about is or is not. But what about a not-is and not-is not, and is-is and is-is not and all the other variations. That doesn't make sense on one level, but as we practice, and we have to practice, it starts to make sense. We start to see that things are way, way beyond what they think they are.

And so it is with the self. Like Jundo says, it's not that the self doesn't exist. Of course we have a self, but it's not as solid as you think. I think of myself as a human, a zen practitioner, an asshole (lol), a nerd, etc. But I'm way more than any of that.

I think I practice zazen, but zazen practices me. The universe expresses itself through me. How does this help? How does this relate? I don't want to minimize this, but in a way it's very calming. It is very very comforting.

Taking this further, and I think that is what this koan does, I think it wakes us up as students. We come here with ideas about enlightenment, so we need to view enlightenment in terms of emptiness. There is no enlightenment. Oh no!!! What do we do, we've been wasting our time! Nah - that's just more tricks. That's just one side of this no-sided coin. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness, emptiness is emptiness and form is form. So it's not that there is no enlightenment, but it's just not what I think it is. It's not something to be gained; it's not something that I get certified for or tack on my resume. So you can't say there is enlightenment or not enlightenment. And it's only because there isn't enlightenment that the Buddha's Way is a path of Enlightenment. There's enlightenment, our concepts, etc. Then there's enlightenment beyond all that.

Even emptiness is empty. I get caught up in Zen talk, I like to write and philosophize, but Jishin is right; if this is just a writing/thinking contest, it's horseshit. Real zen is none of that. This is just a finger pointing to the moon.

Gassho,

Risho
-sattoday

[Jishin]

Hey Risho,

I always appreciate what you have to say. Wasn't speaking about you in particular. Probably was talking about me since everything originates in my mind. Could not sleep last night so I was angry when I wrote the above. Got some sleep and now I am happy. Angry. Happy. Angry. Happy. Angry. Happy! It's all good if we don't hang on to our feelings.

Have a good productive day and don't be an angry elf like me.

Gassho, Jishin, ST

[Risho]

No I was sincere when I said I agree with you. I really enjoy your posts as well.

I absolutely love this

I think that whatever is done on the cushion or talked about ultimately is worthless if it does nothing to help others. It needs to be made real by action (practice-enlightenment).

Gassho,

Risho
-sattoday

[Jishin]

Group hug!

Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_

[Jundo]

You two sound like modern Vimalakirti and Manjushri arguing over whether something should be said or not.

Gassho, J

SatToday

[Jishin]

You two sound like modern Vimalakirti and Manjushri arguing over whether something should be said or not.

Gassho, J

SatToday

Then the crown prince Manjusri said to the Licchavi Vimalakirti, "We have all given our own teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the entrance into the principle of nonduality!"

Thereupon, the Licchavi Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.

The crown prince Manjusri applauded the Licchavi Vimalakirti: "Excellent! Excellent, noble sir! This is indeed the entrance into the nonduality of the bodhisattvas. Here there is no use for syllables, sounds, and ideas."

OK. I will be quiet now. I promise.

Gassho, Jishin, ST

[Risho]

hahaahahaha

[Hoko]

I'm glad Risho mentioned the Diamond Sutra.
There is a line in there where the Buddha says that those who are undertaking the Bodhisattva path must first "give birth to a thought".
That got my attention. The Buddha said to give rise to a thought?! YES!
I mean 99% of the time we read about not (intentionally) giving rise to thoughts.
"Avoid picking and choosing!" right?

But you can't step on to a path that is no path without first taking a step that is no step!

Here's the quote from Chapter 17 of Red Pine's translation:
The Buddha said, “Subhuti, someone who sets forth on the bodhisattva path should give birth to the
thought: ‘In the realm of complete nirvana, I shall liberate all beings. And while I thus liberate beings,
not a single being is liberated.’

So even though "we are already enlightened" (beyond thought) you still have to "give rise to a thought" to move towards it.
It cannot be helped that enlightenment is a concept that falls into the "secondary head" (or "conceptual mind").
There's really no way to discuss a concept without first having a provisional self.
One might say that's the whole point and benefit of being a human being and not a boulder!
(Then again, boulders don't have to pay taxes so hey, there's that...)

It's like someone asking "how can I be a good person?"
Well, first you must TRY and be a good person. AIM AT being a good person. INTEND TO BE a good person.

Assuming the posture of "being a good person", we become "good people".

It's not that "being a good person" doesn't happen, but how can "being a good person" not help but fall into the category of "a concept of what a good person is"?

Perhaps the intent to be a "good person" is the very essence of being a "good person"?

Is it possible to "give birth to a thought about being a good person" while simultaneously also being a "good person"?
Can you still be a "good person" if you don't make any effort to AIM AT being a "good person"?
And even if you are inherently a "good person" will you ever realize this if you don't TRY?

Pulling the bowstring taut I aim at the target.
Releasing the target, I let the arrow fly.

Gassho,
-K2
#SatToday

[Jundo]

I'm glad Risho mentioned the Diamond Sutra.
There is a line in there where the Buddha says that those who are undertaking the Bodhisattva path must first "give birth to a thought".
That got my attention. The Buddha said to give rise to a thought?! YES!
I mean 99% of the time we read about not (intentionally) giving rise to thoughts.
"Avoid picking and choosing!" right?

But you can't step on to a path that is no path without first taking a step that is no step!

Here's the quote from Chapter 17 of Red Pine's translation:
The Buddha said, “Subhuti, someone who sets forth on the bodhisattva path should give birth to the
thought: ‘In the realm of complete nirvana, I shall liberate all beings. And while I thus liberate beings,
not a single being is liberated.’

So even though "we are already enlightened" (beyond thought) you still have to "give rise to a thought" to move towards it.
It cannot be helped that enlightenment is a concept that falls into the "secondary head" (or "conceptual mind").
There's really no way to discuss a concept without first having a provisional self.
One might say that's the whole point and benefit of being a human being and not a boulder!
(Then again, boulders don't have to pay taxes so hey, there's that...)

It's like someone asking "how can I be a good person?"
Well, first you must TRY and be a good person. AIM AT being a good person. INTEND TO BE a good person.

Assuming the posture of "being a good person", we become "good people".

It's not that "being a good person" doesn't happen, but how can "being a good person" not help but fall into the category of "a concept of what a good person is"?

Perhaps the intent to be a "good person" is the very essence of being a "good person"?

Is it possible to "give birth to a thought about being a good person" while simultaneously also being a "good person"?
Can you still be a "good person" if you don't make any effort to AIM AT being a "good person"?
And even if you are inherently a "good person" will you ever realize this if you don't TRY?

Pulling the bowstring taut I aim at the target.
Releasing the target, I let the arrow fly.

Gassho,
-K2
#SatToday

Hmmmm. Clear your head.

Sometimes during Zazen, it feels as if there are no thoughts ... like the clear blue boundless sky without a cloud or like a pristine mirror without a mote of dust ... This is Good Zazen.

Sometimes there are thoughts, but they become transparent and whispy and unhurried ... as if the light shines through, and they are there yet not there, a mere vessel for the light to appear and be given form ... glowing with Wisdom and Compassion. All the things and happenings and people and conflicts and troubles and good and bad and sunny and rainy days of the world are there yet not ... substantial yet a dreamy dream. Thinking non Thinking. This is Good Zazen.

Sometimes there are so many thoughts that the sky is completely cloudy and stormy ... all light hidden. Yet, even on those darkest days, have trust that the sun and moon yet shine even behind the darkest cloud. This is Bad Zazen but also Good Zazen.

Just some thoughts on the day after a powerful typhoon has passed through our town, and now the skies are crystal clear.



Our heads and lives can encounter many such passing winds and storms.

Gassho, J

SatLast Night at the Center of the Hurricane

[Hoko]

Gassho, Jundo.
K2
#SatToday

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

[Mitty-san]

Wow. A lot of excitement happened here since yesterday. Deep thoughts you all have.

One interesting article I found talks about how violent criminals often view themselves as good people: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...lf-good-person. My humble and imperfect thought is perhaps as the article alludes to, thinking one is a good person makes one less of a good person as one may be thinking there's nothing more to do and become careless or not try to improve. The practice of focusing on being good in each new moment seems the most Zennish, to me at least.

Also, while we're on the subject of Zen speak, it turns out there was actually a Chinese Zen master who rebelled against over-intellectualizing in Zen even by burning his copy of the Blue Cliff Record and having his students just focus on for example a short phrase in a koan.

The Hua Tou method was invented[2] by the Chinese Zen master Dahui Zonggao (1089 – 1163) who was a member of the Linji school. ... Dahui was also against the intellectualism and literary commentary that had begun to enter into Koan practice with the Blue Cliff Record of his master Yuan-wu. In fact, Dahui burned his copy of the Blue Cliff Record.
...
Hwadu [Korean for Hua Tou] is the predominant technique cultivated in [Korean] meditation halls, and almost all masters advocate its use for students at all levels.

It was also popularized by the famous 20th century Chinese Zen master Hsu Yun. For Japanese Zen, from reading about it more, this problem appears to me to apply to Rinzai over-intellectualizing with its greater emphasis on koans than Soto with its Shikantanza.

Gassho

Sat today

Paul

[Eishuu]

I found this koan really helpful and have attempted to summarise some of my thinking. I'm sure this is pretty simplistic, but this is how it spoke to me.

From the point of view of ultimate reality, enlightenment, non-dual experience, there is no 'enlightenment'. If there were 'enlightenment' there would have to be a 'second level', which would create duality. From the point of view of enlightened experience, 'enlightenment'/'nonenightenment' are just ideas and concepts.

From the point of view of our normal dual thinking, there is enlightenment and non-enlightenment, and maybe sometimes this is a useful shorthand for conceptual discussions.

So I was trying to think how this applies to my practice and realised that during Zazen, the concept of 'enlightenment', of there being two 'levels', creates a problem. The thought of or desire for 'enlightenment' is just another thought or desire and I need to let go of it or just be aware of it like any other thought or feeling. When I want to 'get there' and 'away from here' (which I experience a lot) I create difficulty and suffering. And I do that with the concept of 'enlightenment' or memories of insights that I have had as much as I might do it with wanting/not-wanting anything.

I read a Suzuki quote the other day on Insight Timer that really stuck with me and resonates with this...it was “Without losing yourself by sticking to a particular role or understanding, keep finding yourself, moment after moment. This is the only thing for you to do”. I realise how much baggage, concepts and ideas I have been carrying into Zazen. The phrase “disregard traps and snares” speaks to this too for me...the need to constantly let go and open the hand of thought, to experience each moment anew and afresh for the first time, without even the concept of enlightenment...just this moment.

I shall attempt to take this into my practice.

Gassho
Lucy
Sat today

[Tairin]

I enjoyed this koan and all the comments here.

Unlike a few of the more recent koans I can relate to this one. When sitting Zazen I find that I alternate between moments of mindfulness and awareness interrupted by my incessant need to perform a self-commentary, almost as if I am performing an interview with myself on my current Zazen. As soon as the "interview" starts, I am at the second level.

Prior to the Olympics 100m men's final, Donovan Baily (former Canadian Olympic 100m champion) was asked what was going through the competators' minds as they prepared for the race start. He said (not a direct quote) that they weren't thinking about anything, they were at peace. If they were thinking about anything they were lost. Seems to be apropos to our koan. Do it/be it but if you sit and try to quantify or qualify it then you'll be at the second level.

At least that's what I got out of this koan

Gassho
Warren
Sat today

[Bokusei]

I'm with you Warren. This is the first koan which has resonated with me rather than creating a sense of missing the target (me, not the koan).

It reminds me of the sense of seemingly infinite freedom felt in the moment before commitment to an action when sparing in martial arts. Of course if you intellectualise it, there is no such freedom. But beyond the intellect this sense of being and not being resonates deeply.

Attempting to describe these things has a habit of muddying the water, at least when I clumsily attempt it. But maybe this makes some sense.


Gassho

Bokusei
saTToday

[Hoko]

"Do people these days have to attain enlightenment or not?"
Gassho,
K2
#SatToday

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

[Jakuden]

Touché Kliff. Did we all do a good enough job illustrating this koan, or what ( because of course that was our intention all along, RIGHT GUYS?)
Gassho
Jakuden
SatToday


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Onkai]

Right, Jakuden. I think I'll sit again.

Gassho,
Onkai
SatToday

[Jundo]

JUNDO NOTE: I HAVE SPLIT OFF THE DISCUSSION ON CRIME AND EUGENICS TO HERE:

http://www.treeleaf.org/forums/showt...ics-the-Future