Huanglong Nan addressed the assembly:
“Where people today settle down, I don’t settle down. Where people today go, I don’t go. If you’re perfectly clear about the point right here, you still have to know how to throw your whole body into the fire pit.”

With his whisk he drew a single stroke and said:
“Stinking smoke billowing up, red flames blazing fiercely! Anyone whose eye isn’t clear is right in the middle of it. From ancient times on, none of the sages failed to enter the pit of birth and death, going straight into the fires of ignorance to pull living beings out.

So then, all of you; how do you get in?

If someone can get in, you could say:
in fire, they aren’t burned;
in water, they don’t drown.

If you can’t get in, not only can you not benefit yourself, you can’t benefit anyone else either. And if you can neither benefit yourself nor others, then that round shaved head and square monk’s robe aren’t worth a damn.”

After a long pause he called out: “Everyone!”
The assembly raised their heads.
He said: “Ox-head emerges. Horse-head turns back.”

Thomas Cleary

Master Huanglong Nan said to an assembly, “Where people of the time dwell, I do not dwell; where people of the time go, I do not go.” To perfectly understand the intended meaning here, you must know how to enter a pit of fire with your whole body. [Drawing a line with the whisk:] Foul smoke fumes, red flames rage. But those whose eyes are not yet clear are all inside. The ancient sages since time immemorial have all gone into the pit of birth and death, into the fire of ignorance, to lift out sentient beings. As for you people, how will you go in? If people can go in, they can be said to be in fire without burning, in water without drowning. If they can’t enter, not only can they not help themselves, they can’t help others either. If you can’t help yourself or help others, there’s no benefit to a shaven head and monastic robes. [After a long silence, he called to the group; when they raised their heads, he said,] Going out with an ox head, coming back with a horse head.

Chinese

黃龍南和尚示眾云。時人住處我不住。時人行處我不行。於此了然明的旨。須會全身入火坑。以拂子畫一畫云。臭煙蓬[火*孛]紅焰熾然。眼未明者總在裏許。從上古聖無非入生死坑中。向無明火裏提拔有情。汝等諸人且如何入。若人入得。可謂在火不燒在水不溺。若入不得。非唯不能自利亦乃不能利佗。既不能自利利佗。圓頂方袍殊無利益。良久召大眾。大眾舉頭。乃云。牛頭出。馬頭回。

- - -

牛頭 and 馬頭 naturally evoke the infernal Ox-Head and Horse-Face figures associated with the underworld, especially after all the talk about the pit of birth-and-death and entering fire.

- - -

How do you secularize or demythologize a passage like this? If you don't believe in samsara or hell, how do you parse this kind of talk from a Zen master?

What is the “point right here,” or the “intended meaning here”? I would think it is related to what I see as a recurring Zen way of talking about enlightenment: not being a companion to the myriad things, not being a neighbor to the dusts, being someone with nothing to do, etc.

But Huanglong Nan makes it clear that this isn't simply detachment or aloofness—not some jerk sitting on a mountain thinking he's above it all. The ancient sages enter the pit of birth and death and go directly into the fire of ignorance to pull out sentient beings. They enter the fire without being burned by it.

So what does it mean not to “settle where people settle” or “go where people go,” while at the same time entering completely into their situation?

And that leads to another question: what does it mean to help or save ourselves and others? From what? If samsara, ignorance, and liberation are being read nonreligiously, what exactly are we saying people are caught in, and what would freedom from it amount to?

師云：弘道而心常淡泊，順事而意識奔馳，但願道富身貧、情踈德厚。山僧者裏日日恁麼、時時恁麼，且道恁麼是什麼？離却分別心識意度言句，外道將一句來，此事無你解會處。如今但是心慮覺觀者皆有箇解會得，及乎返窮己眼、返思思慮之心，為什麼人到者裏不知，便說道從本已來非青黃赤白、無相無狀？我說向你道：此喚 作言語，不是你本心。本心如何思量？己眼如何得見？正當返觀時，亦無能見之者。有人去者裏一口吞盡，慧眼豁開，頓達本鄉也。　今時人若為到無見無聞處，現定萬法亘然，見人見屋，種種 萬象如湯涌沸，未有一時停住。祇如作嬰兒時，也聞聲、也見色，祇是不解分別，纔曉事來便釆聽分別，自那時前後分披了也。到者裏要人整理，不妨難為他得道人行時不見行、坐時不見坐。所以如來道：眼見色與盲等，耳聞聲與響等。作麼生說如盲如響？聞聲時無聲可聞，見色時無色可見，所見所聞皆如響等。又如夢時見種種境界，覺來還有許多般也無？若有，牀上祇是被與枕子；若道無許多般，又心中歷歷地記得說得。如今白日所見所聞亦復如是。所以道：眼見耳聞底事，經論可學，唯有靈臺。作麼生學？久立。

The Master said: When spreading the Way, the mind remains ever tranquil and detached; when responding to affairs, consciousness and discrimination rush about. I only wish that the Way be rich and the body poor, that emotions be thin and virtue thick.

Here at this mountain monastery, I am thus every day and thus every moment; but tell me, what is this 'thus'?

Setting aside discriminative mind, consciousness, intellectual measuring, and verbal expressions; bring me one phrase from outside the way, for this matter admits no place for your intellectual understanding.

Nowadays, all who engage in mental rumination and conscious observation think they have some understanding, yet when they turn back to exhaust their own eye and reflect on the very mind that reflects, why is it that when people reach this point they do not know? Then they say, 'From the very beginning it is neither blue, yellow, red, nor white; it has no form and no shape.' But I tell you: this is called speech—it is not your original mind.

How can the original mind be deliberated?

How can one's own eye be seen?

At the very moment of turning back to observe, there is also no one who can see. If someone can swallow it all in one gulp at this point, their wisdom-eye will suddenly open, and they will instantly arrive at their native home.

How do people nowadays reach the place of no seeing and no hearing?

The myriad dharmas stand manifestly before them, they see people, they see houses, and all kinds of phenomena surge forth like boiling soup, without a single moment's pause. Yet when they were infants, they also heard sounds and saw forms, but they simply did not know how to discriminate. Only when they began to understand things did they start to listen and discriminate, and from that time on, they became fragmented into before and after. To come to this point and require someone to set it in order, truly, it is difficult!

A person who has attained the Way, when walking, does not see themselves walking; when sitting, does not see themselves sitting.

Thus the Tathāgata said: 'In seeing forms, the eye is like that of a blind person; in hearing sounds, the ear is like an echo.'

How do we speak of being 'like the blind' and 'like an echo'? When hearing sound, there is no sound to be heard; when seeing form, there is no form to be seen; all that is seen and heard is like an echo. It is also like when dreaming, you see all kinds of realms—when you wake up, are they still there? If they were, then on the bed there would only be the blanket and the pillow; if you say they are not there, then you still remember them clearly and can recount them. The same is true of what you see and hear in broad daylight.

Therefore it is said: 'The matters seen by the eyes and heard by the ears, the scriptures and treatises can be studied; but only the numinous terrace, how can it be studied?'

You have stood here long enough.

---

靈臺 is literally something like “numinous terrace/platform,” often used for the inner seat of mind/heart. Cleary translates it as "the basis of awareness itself" and titles the chapter after this.

Case 28 of The Gateless Gate — Deshan and Longtan

The Case

Deshan had long heard of Longtan, but he had never seen him.
One day he went to see Longtan and said, “I have long heard of Longtan, but now that I have arrived, I don’t see a dragon, nor do I see a pond.”

Longtan said, “Oh, you have truly arrived at Longtan.”
Deshan stayed with Longtan until late at night. Longtan said, “It is late. Why don’t you go to bed?”
Deshan bowed and went out. After a while, he returned and said, “It is dark outside.”

Longtan lit a paper lantern and handed it to him. Deshan took the lantern and was about to leave when Longtan suddenly blew it out.

At that moment, Deshan was enlightened.
Longtan said, “What did you see?”
Deshan replied, “From now on, I will not doubt the words of the old masters.”

The next day, Longtan went up to the Dharma hall and said to the assembly:
“There is a fellow among you whose teeth are like swords and whose mouth is like a blood bowl. Even if you strike him with a stick, he will not turn his head. Someday he will climb the highest peak and establish my Way there.”

Commentary

Mumon says:
If Deshan had not met Longtan, his story would not have been complete. If he had met Longtan, he would not have been enlightened.
Tell me—how did Deshan suddenly become enlightened?

Verse
Hearing the name cannot compare with seeing the person;
Seeing the person cannot compare with seeing the truth.
Fortunately, his nose was straight;
Yet he mistakenly took the lantern as his own.

Celery:
Deshan burned all of his commentaries. He said to investigate to the end of the workings of the world is like throwing a drop of water into a great abyss.

Why was Deshan enlightened when old Longtan blew out the candle? How could he see when he could not see? Ha! The old man knew what he was doing all along. The dragons hide amongst us.

Too often the verbose is rewarded when it ought to be punished. What value is there in 100,000 volumes of truth when the words hold no value?

Ash.

One day Chao-chou fell down in the snow, and called out, “Help me up! Help me up!” A monk came and lay down beside him. Chao-chou got up and went away. 

_______________

The other monk taught Chao-Chou that your bondage is a choice. 

Just as you choose to fall into the snow, you can also choose to get up and go away. 

But this thing can't be taught to a beginner

Only a disciple ripe enough and the last thing clouding him is able to take that.

When Nan-ch’uan (Nansen) was coming back to his room after taking a bath, he saw the monk in charge of the bath stoking the fires and asked, “What are you doing?”

The monk answered, “Stoking the fire.”

Nan-ch’uan said, “Don’t forget to call the water buffalo in to have a bath.”

The monk assented.

The next evening the monk came into Nan-ch’uan’s room. Nan-ch’uan said, “What are you doing?”

The monk said, “Asking the water buffalo to come to the bath.”

Nan-ch’uan said, “Did you bring a lead rope or not?”

The monk could not respond.

When the master came to call on Nan-ch’uan, Nan-ch’uan told him what had happened.

The master said, “I would have had something to say.”

Nan-ch’uan said, “Well, have you brought a rope with you?”

The master came forward, grabbed him by the nose, and began pulling him to the bath house.

Nan-ch’uan said, “Okay! Okay! Beast!”

Nansen seems like he's toying with the monk here in the first instance. It doesn't necessarily work or not work. The monk just agrees. It seems like he's trying to get him to conceptualize. Per the previous post, I think the correlation to cow/buffalo and Nansen fits here.

The second instance he's trying to trip the monk up and it works. The monk gets stuck in his head.

Nansen tries his shenanigans on Joshu who plays along and grabs him by where likely a buffalo's nose ring (to attach a lead) would go.

Nansen cries out likely at the pain and says Joshu is the true beast (buffalo).

What's more interesting to me is that hundreds of years later I'm sitting here trying to decipher what was probably just a passing conversation. Why was it important enough to be written down on wood blocks? What made the cut and didn't? Someone clearly had an affection for this old water buffalo.

The master asked Nan-ch’uan (Nansen), “I’m not asking about differentiation, what about sameness?”

Nan-ch’uan placed both hands on the ground [in the pose of a dog].

The master kicked him over, went to the infirmary, and shouted, “What a pity! What a pity!”

Nan-ch’uan heard this and sent someone to find out what the trouble was.

The master said, “It’s a pity that I didn’t get to kick him over a second time.”

I don't really understand this case. It seems like I'm missing some cultural or other context.

Josh asked Nansen a Zen question.

Nansen does a dog pose. I'm not sure why, I'm probably missing context.

Joshu kicks Nansen over etc.

Nansen heard this, which i'm guessing was some time later? He sends someone else, for some reason to see what happened.

Joshu replies presumably to the monk's question that it's a shame he could not incite violence on Nansen again.

Knowing the rest of Zen stuff, reading this only as a funny anecdote is probably not the whole story.

the story goes: before he got enlightened, zen master buddha was troubled by 3 things he'd realised that no-one can avoid. aging, sickness, and death. so he sat under a tree and thought about it every day until one day he shot up and said 'i alone am the world-honoured one.' Then he went around explaining what he'd seen and took questions from all comers. most people couldn't understand him and a lot of them formed religions based on random trivia about his lifestyle, or systems of thought based on his incidental choice of words. but at least one person did understand, and after ZM buddha had died there were still people alive who could explain it, and so on across generations until we get to bodhidharma who brings it to china (where the religions and philosophies we talked about earlier already had a footing) and says: you've all misunderstood buddha. and china at this time has such a crazy culture of organised reading and writing that enlightenment really takes off at scale.

that's just what i've heard from hanging out on this forum for about a decade.

so what exactly did zm buddha figure out sitting under that tree?

presumably, he found something that made the whole business of 'aging, sickness and death' significantly more tolerable.

what makes that stuff more tolerable for most people? i'd be super surprised if the answer is anything other than 'living a good life.'

what the hell is a good life? probably doing things you enjoy, and doing things other people enjoy you doing, in a ratio you can live with. 

you can bug me about what 'enjoy' means if you want to be pedantic, but for the sake of argument i'm gonna assume we're on the same page so far.

i think zm buddha must have come the same conclusion at first, but i think he must've figured out something further to blurt out 'i alone am the honoured one', let alone the eccentric behaviour of later zen masters.

'what could further be?' is the question i've been working on, and it led me to the following daydream:

you're in a big hall with a big pot of rice porridge in the middle. you bring your bowl over to the pot and take a ladleful of rice. a guy yells at you "hey! that's more than your fair share. I know you think you're hungry, but you don't know hunger like these monks know hunger. you're lucky they've generously agreed to equal portions, because in truth they need more than you." you think about this for a moment, looking at the size of the pot, the size of the crowd, and the rice in your bowl. "It seems to me I've given myself an equal portion." you say. "don't listen to him!" another voice cries out. "you've actually served yourself too little rice. not only is it unfair on you, it's actually a problem for the whole community. we need you to be strong to work in the fields so that we'll have enough rice not just for today, but for next year. If you listen to that deceitful monk and don't feed yourself enough, you won't be able to work as hard and contribute as much to the community."

my point being, knowing that sharing is caring doesn't quite solve problems like this, but the world honoured one could probably solve it blindfolded.

where the hell do you get that kind of intelligence?

"Conveying oneself towards all things to carry out practice-enlightenment is delusion. All things coming and carrying out practice-enlightenment through the self is realization."
Dogen, Genjokoan, tr. Okumura

"When one does not understand, the person pursues dharmas;
when one understands, dharmas pursue the person."
Bodhidharma, Record I of the Long Scroll, tr. Broughton

Dogen catches a lot of flack around here, but man, he had a deep knowledge of Chan history and often incorporated it into his own writings.

I spend a significant amount of time studying early Chan and recently stumbled upon this seeming connection while reading The Bodhidharma Anthology.

What do you noble sons and daughters think?

​

Authentic self... According to who?

Buddhists believe that you don't have a self. As a religion they get to make up whatever they want and part of convincing you to be a part of the Buddhist religion is promising you that you don't really have a self.

Zazen is an indigenous Japanese religion that promises people freedom that only exists within the religious practice. Dogen, the messiah of Zazen, tells his followers that you can't be yourself when you're confused by life. Now granted he wrote that when he was in his early 20s and he gave it up after less than a decade but that's the Doctrine of the Shikantaza Church

What about Zen?

Zen masters teach that you're always yourself, whether you know it or not.

Zen is the only tradition that follows Buddha's sudden permanent enlightenment, an enlightenment is only possible if the preconditions for it are ever present.

Zen's self is directly experienced. It's not known so there can't be a doctrine about it because every doctrine and every teaching is about knowing.

As knowing is subtracted and experience is emphasized, we get farther and farther away from things that sound true and closer and closer to "If you haven't been in love, you're just not going to understand it."

Yunju Zhi's no seer

Clearly seeing like this is then called seeing the nature. Nature is Buddha; Buddha is nature. Therefore it is said: seeing the nature, becoming Buddha.”

[The monk] said: “Since the nature is pure and does not belong to being or nonbeing, because of what is there seeing?”

The master said: “Seeing, with nothing that is seen.”

[The monk] said: “Since there is nothing seen, why further is there seeing?”

The master said: “The place of seeing also is not.”

[The monk] said: “At the time of seeing like this, whose seeing is it?”

The master said: “There is no one able to see.”

[The monk] said: “Ultimately, how is this principle?”

The master said: “Do you know? Falsely reckoning it as being, then there is subject and object; only then does it get the name ‘confusion.’

Now a warning? 

Not being able to explain love to somebody who has never been in love doesn't mean that love doesn't exist.

The problem is that people try to apply this same logic to stuff that actually doesn't exist, like God and the supernatural and higher states of consciousness and telepathy and meditative or lsd insight.

The key difference is there are real people who have been enlightened but there are no real people that have had any of that other stuff. If you can encounter it in real life and bring it out, show it to everybody, then the fact that it exists like love but cannot be explained is plausible.

No doctrine required.

​

Why are all these prostitutes in Europe? 

On one of my first trips to Europe, I was stunned by both the prevalence of and tolerance for prostitution. How could Europe be all sophisticated and still have what seemed like slavery?

Well, if you know me, you know exactly what I did next: read some books.  Of the reading I did, a couple of things really stunned me. In a book called *Live Sex Acts: Women Performing Erotic Labor*, a sex worker described the frustration she felt when trying to get her customers to frankly express what they wanted. 

That's right. Customers were having trouble placing their order. It wasn't paying for intimacy that was the challenge. It was admitting what they were paying for.

What do you want (to be true)?

This is the exact problem we have with interviewing New Agers or reading books written by New Agers...

New-agers can't say what they believe.

They talk in vague Alan Watts platitudes. They insist that a meditative, stuporous trance can change your life. They express belief in an ephemeral divinity of goodness that has no mind of its own. 

Why?

Because these people really don't believe any thing, they believe in believing. 

So when they get to Zen, with its endless darkness of Emptiness without Goodness, obviously they are not going to get along with Zen. 

Foyan 

“I respectfully urge you brothers: first, for the time being, get rid of the [objects of attention.]

All day, every day you think of clothing, think of food; all sorts of miscellaneous concerns are like the flame of a lamp—there is not one period in which they stop and rest.

Just remove the objects of your attention, [the causes of your knowing]; whatever subtle things [there truely are] will naturally become completely cleared away.”

I have no Zen for people to investigate, nor any Dharma to discuss with you. I only want each of you to accord with the message of Zen for yourselves.”

Teach that!

Foyan having nothing to teach people to make them Good - this is a tough job, made tougher by a modern society that is afraid to say a true-to-them word. 

Asking them to AMA is literally asking them for something they don't have. 

Asking new agers and Zazen people and mysticism believers to AMA is literally asking them for something they don't have. 

For most people social media is entirely performative. They aren't sharing what they know or what they are convinced of. They're sharing their belief in believing.

Foyan Instructs

I tell you: as soon as you get involved with the slightest indication, it has already become fragmented. As soon as you try to reveal it by illuminating it with knowledge, it has already become darkened.

Now simply do not seize upon my words. Each of you, on your own, do your work.

Looking into the incidents of the ancients will do. Sitting quietly will do. Observing in every place will do. All are places where you do your work. Every place is a place where you realize and enter.

Just specialize single-mindedly in one place; as the days come and the months pass, you will necessarily be broken through / dealt with by it.

Performative rabbi voodoo shamanism

New Age communities hate on this forum every day, including downvote brigading and smack talking in other forums about how rZen is gatekeeping close-minded legit real life other perspectives.

These complainers are performative rabbi voodoo shamans and understanding how we know that is as simple as they cannot name a single book about Zen they've ever read.

If they had never read a single book about being a rabbi and they claimed they were a rabbi, they'd get shut down immediately. If they never read a single book about Cherokee shamanism nobody would tolerate their claims of being a Cherokee shaman. If they were trying to promote themselves as living the voodoo lifestyle and they weren't part of a voodoo community, nobody would take them seriously.

And all of these claims would be viewed as racist, bigoted, and white privilege without hesitarion.

not a specialist because you say so

I'm not suggesting that one time reading one book is gonna get you the credibility to rant about your personal experiences.

I'm saying that reading one book one time will help you understand the difference between your personal experiences and your understanding of Zen culture

I've now heard many koans that end like this.

A quick exchange between the questioner and answerer, then followed by this phrase:"He stood there for quite a while."

Why?

Is he thinking about what he just said?

Is he waiting for the next question?

Does he have nowhere else to go but to hang around?

If I had a sword I'd cut him down where he stood, for blocking my way. I guess that's why I don't have a sword. It would be cool asf I'm just saying.

To catch a horn dog?

I was watching one of my favorite movies, To Catch a Thief, and there's a scene in it where Grace Kelly and Cary Grant are having a romantic moment. She's trying to get him to admit his erotic fascination with jewelry but he will only admit to an erotic fascination with Grace Kelly.

The end of the scene is shots of the fireworks that they were watching. I didn't really think about it. It's passionate kissing, fireworks, whatever, but in a following scene this time I noticed that she gets into an argument with her mother over some stolen jewelry. The mother says to her, "It's my jewelry so why are you upset? What did he steal from you?"

That seems to me to indicate that we were shown a raunchy sex scene with fireworks. But then I realized that 1950s audiences probably would have understood that intuitively. I didn't get this because I'm not from the there-then.

Zen master pervs

Naturally I began to think then about what Zen looked like from the outside to people who met Zen masters. I had a long conversation with ChatGPT about existing records and who created them and how we could find a record that was outside the Zen tradition but nevertheless about Zen masters.

What's it like for people to meet a Zen master when they don't live in the black robe community or the white robe community? What's it like to be outside of Zen looking in?

What are the things that I don't see on the texts because I'm not there - then?

Zhou Rudeng's recollection of first meeting Zibo Zhenke

相見慈容滿面……如故。

“When we met, his face was filled with compassion, and he received me as though we were already old acquaintances.”

余具覩如此。奇耶易耶。

“I personally saw him to be as I have described. Was he strange? Was he ordinary?”

予以目擊徐公一節可推。

“What I witnessed with my own eyes in the episode concerning Lord Xu is enough to infer [the truth].”

So this Zen Master had a reputation of being a little bit of a weirdo and the guy is saying, "I met him, he wasn't that weird?"

Apparently the list of weird things includes:

• a disregard for personal hygiene

• Dressing like a poor person

• getting super angry at monks who ate meat and drank alcohol

• not receiving guests, which later turned out to be really something his community imposed not something that he imposed

This doesn't really get me to where I wanna go

It just makes it look like spending a lot of time in the texts is a lot like being there.

That's surprising but it shouldn't be too surprising given the fact that that's what the texts were created for. It's why we have Jow Joe in the outhouse. That's why we have Kneeling Like a Foreigner. They're trying to tell you in the texts what it was personally like to see these people.

Most of the time ordinary. Some of the time not so much.

Cue the monk turning over the table with fireworks in the background.

This is the 9th case of Wansong’s Book of Serenity,

On the road to Taishan there lived a certain woman. Wherever a monk asked her, "Which way does the road to Taishan go?" the woman would say, "Right straight on." As soon as the monk would go, the woman would say, "A fine priest--he goes that way too." A monk told Zhaozhou about this; Zhaozhou said, "Wait till I check out that woman for you." Zhaozhou also asked the woman the same question. The next day he went up in the hall and said, "I have checked out the woman for you."

Zen’s pretty big on checking it out for yourself. So what’s your job when reading these cases? What do you check out for yourself?

I think that’s going to look different for everybody, but it’s only going to look different after we do the work of understanding what the hell is going on in the case. Does the translation make sense? Do we need to know anything important about its context in order to understand the meaning of the conversation? What does Wansong and Tiantong (or other Zen Masters say about this case)?

"Now I want to ask you: What was the point of Zhaozhou’s investigating the old woman?"

Here's Tiantong with some work for you,

Old in years, attaining the essence, no mistake in transmission—

The Ancient Buddha Zhaozhou succeeded to Nanquan. 

The dead tortoise loses its life due to designs drawn on it;

Even the steeds 'Chariot' and 'Wind-chaser' are encumbered by halter and bridle.

Having checked out the woman's Chan,

Told to people, it's not worth a cent.

I got a DM chiding me for not promoting these more including making sure they're in the sidebar.

I haven't done a comparative translation but I thought I would offer the first few steps that I go through when doing a comparative translation:

# chatgpt - find the Chinese, take the first pass.

> The text usually translated as “Wumen’s Warnings” or “Wumen’s Admonitions” is titled 禪箴 (Chán zhēn), literally “Chan Admonitions,” “Chan Cautions,” or “Needles of Chan.” It appears after the forty-eight cases of the Wumenguan.

* ewk- have to explain why the word needles is here.

> A reliable electronic source is CBETA, T2005, Chanzong Wumenguan. You can also see the photographic Taishō canon text in this NTU scan, page 20.

* ewk - need to run a comparison across the existing copies and maybe date when those copies became available.

# Chinese of Wumen

禪箴

循規守矩，無繩自縛。

縱橫無礙，外道魔軍。

存心澄寂，默照邪禪。

恣意忘緣，墮落深坑。

惺惺不昧，帶鎖擔枷。

思善思惡，地獄天堂。

佛見法見，二鐵圍山。

念起即覺，弄精魂漢。

兀然習定，鬼家活計。

進則迷理，退則乖宗。

不進不退，有氣死人。

且道如何履踐？

努力今生須了卻，

莫教永劫受餘殃。

# Problems with translation

禪箴

“Admonitions of Chan.”

循規守矩，無繩自縛。

“To follow the compass and keep to the square: binding yourself when there is no rope.”

* ewk - Goliath has it without rope. This language seems stronger * When there is no such thing as rope *?

規 and 矩 are literally the compass and carpenter’s square, hence prescribed rules and standards.

The warning is against becoming imprisoned by correct forms—not necessarily against discipline itself.

縱橫無礙，外道魔軍。

“To range vertically and horizontally without obstruction: the demonic army of the outside ways.”

縱橫 suggests moving freely in every direction.

A claim of complete spontaneity and unrestricted freedom can itself become a heterodox or demonic attachment.

* ewk - need to focus here because the language others have used does not really convey a refusal to accept restrictions

存心澄寂，默照邪禪。

“To preserve the mind in limpid stillness: the deviant Zen of silent illumination.”

* ewk - I need a footnote on silent illumination: etymology of the term. Who it applies to, controversy.

存心 means deliberately maintaining or holding the mind in a particular condition.

澄寂 is “clear and still,” like water allowed to settle.

默照, “silent illumination,” was also the name associated with a contemplative approach. Here Wumen attacks deliberately maintaining quiet inner clarity as a fixed state.

恣意忘緣，墮落深坑。

“To indulge the mind and forget conditions: falling into a deep pit.”

恣意 means letting the mind do as it pleases.

忘緣 means forgetting, abandoning, or becoming oblivious to conditioned relations and circumstances.

惺惺不昧，帶鎖擔枷。

“To remain alert and never obscured: wearing a lock and carrying a cangue.”

惺惺 is bright, awake, and keenly attentive.

* ewk - I have a footnote somewhere about the use of the term "bright". It should be repeated here

枷 is the wooden penal collar or cangue.

Even continuous spiritual vigilance becomes an instrument of confinement when deliberately maintained.

思善思惡，地獄天堂。

“To think good and think evil: hell and heaven.”

The syntax is extremely compressed. Literally, discriminating good and evil establishes the dual realm of “hell and heaven.” This recalls Huineng’s question: “Without thinking good and without thinking evil, at just this moment, what is your original face?”

佛見法見，二鐵圍山。

“Views of Buddha and views of Dharma: two Iron-Encircling Mountains.”

見 means a view, conception, or fixed way of seeing.

鐵圍山 is the vast iron mountain encircling a Indian cosmos.

* ewk - this needs a footnote and I think ChatGPT made a mistake regarding the mountains. I think it's a reference to an impassable terrain.

Conceptions of “Buddha” and “Dharma” become two enormous enclosing walls.

念起即覺，弄精魂漢。

“When a thought arises, immediately to notice it: a fellow playing with the spirit-soul.”

覺 can mean awaken to, notice, recognize, or become aware of.

弄精魂漢 is deliberately contemptuous: “a fellow fooling around with his psychic spirit,” meaning someone making a performance or contrivance out of monitoring consciousness.

* ewk - Spirit Soul is going to need a massive footnote

兀然習定，鬼家活計。

“To sit blankly cultivating concentration: the livelihood of a household of ghosts.”

兀然 suggests rigid, motionless, blank, or inert stillness.

活計 literally means one’s livelihood, trade, or customary business.

“Ghost-family business” suggests a lifeless practice belonging among the dead.

* ewk - this has come up and been argued before. I don't think Ghosts works in English. I think it's a reference to the living dead... Zombie mentality.

進則迷理，退則乖宗。

“If you advance, you lose the principle; if you retreat, you turn away from the source.”

宗 can mean the essential teaching, fundamental principle, ancestral tradition, or source.

Both pressing forward and withdrawing miss it.

不進不退，有氣死人。

“Neither advancing nor retreating: a dead person who still has breath.”

有氣死人 is literally “a dead person possessing breath”: biologically alive, but spiritually inert.

且道如何履踐？

“Now say: how will you tread it and put it into practice?”

履踐 literally means to tread, walk, carry out, or practice personally.

努力今生須了卻，

“Exert yourself—in this present life you must finish it completely.”

了卻 means to settle, complete, finish, or be done with the matter.

莫教永劫受餘殃。

“Do not let yourself, through endless kalpas, suffer the calamity left over.”

* ewk - this is a criticism of reincarnation so we need to make sure we include that

More naturally: “Do not allow the consequences of failing to settle it to afflict you for endless ages.”

The structure is intentionally merciless: rule-following is bondage, freedom is demonic, quietude is false Chan, spontaneity is a pit, awareness is a cangue, thought-monitoring is playing with consciousness, and stillness is ghost-work. Advance, retreat, and standing still are all rejected. Wumen is not offering a better mental posture; he is blocking every posture the practitioner might convert into a secure method or identity.

* ewk - I have to re-assess ChatGPT's argument because it hadn't occurred to me before that this constitutes a list of rejections of everything that can be thought of as useful or good

Read the History, Talk the History, #

Episode #: 311, 8/9

https://sites.libsyn.com/407831/zen-talking-nice-pants

Post:

• https://old.reddit.com/r/askZen/comments/1vizzev/xutangs_on_behalf_of_case_30_yunjus_trousers/

Link to all episodes: https://sites.libsyn.com/407831

What did we talk about?

Do pants exist? Chaps? Leg warmers?
Pants as an insult or a working garment? How do we translate from their pants to our pants?

What is translation, anyway?

Keep in Touch

Add a comment if there is a post you want somebody to get interviewed about, or you agree to be interviewed. We are now using libsyn, so you don't even have to show your face. You just get a link to an audio call. Buymeacoffee, so I'm not accused of going it alone:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/ewkrzen

ewk theory of translation

The ewk theory breaks down translation into five sections. Why? Because if you try to footnote your way through a translation without these sections: * the text can become unreadable, with the eye constantly trying to sort through footnoting. * not all audiences want all sections; by sectioning we allow audience selection. If they just want Translation Questions or Restatement they can skip. * not every section is going to be the same length for any given text. Sometimes translation is super simple but context takes an hour. Sometimes the opposite.

Literal

• using words and phrases which for the most part mean something in English.
• No "four modes" what is that? It turns out that this means "four body postures"^1, 1. sitting, standing, lying, reclining.

Context

• Who the mentioned people are, how they know each other, what references they are making,
• This is contextual material that Zen audiences had for 1,000 years. It's a "I told you that story so I can tell you this one" section.

Restatement

• Relate the Case in your own words. This provides HUGE value, often accidentally.
  
• 1900's translators often tried to cram the restatement into the literal translation, causing mistakes like words in translations that aren't in the text anywhere.

Translation Questions

• Explain why this translation is different from other translations of the same material and/or same terms.
  
• Explain why other translations are different from each other. Explain mistakes being made.
• Mysticism and faith thrive on vagueness. Vagueness erases the challenging philosophical questions Zen Masters thrive on.

Discussion

• Explain why for 1,000 years people thought this Case was meaningful in their everyday lives, and how today's audience can understand the same meaningfulness.
  
  • Identify the universal philosophical questions under dispute: Nanquan killed a cat. Is cat killing bad? Can anyone kill a cat? Can Masters do what they want?
  • Identify the particular philosophical questions under dispute: Nanquan was a vegetarian pacifist Zen hippy his whole life. Why jump off the bandwagon over this non-edible can? Why didn't his congregation desert him? Why did he risk his community by killing this cat?

Testing

Here's Wumen's poem on Baizhang's Fox:

不落不昧　兩采一賽　不昧不落　千錯萬錯

It's only four sentences! Of four characters! How hard could that be to make sense of?

I'll save you a little headache and point out that 4x4 is a traditional structure, which means it's unlikely that this poem will feature Wumen shenaniganary, like when he lifts lines from other poems.\

There are some huge problems with this poem. Huge. Here's my translation which we can use as one of the disputed versions in the "translation questions" section.

ewk translation:

Neither falling [into being subject to causation] nor ignorant of it,

both these two matched in one contest.

Neither oblivious [to causation] nor falling [into being subject to it]

a thousand mistakes, ten thousand mistakes."

Zen is about the Four Statements

https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/wiki/fourstatements/

1. Transmission is not recorded in Texts

2. Transmission is not gained through explanations.

3. Transmission depends upon direct experience of the core of the self.

4. Recognition of the core of the self is is called attainment of Buddhahood.

Buddhism's core principles are Commandments

Buddhism has the eight-fold path, a list of rules to follow so that you can accumulate merit.

Aggappasāda Sutta: the noble eightfold path—right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration—is considered supreme... Those who have confidence in the dhamma of the noble path have confidence in what is supreme; and for those with confidence in the supreme, supreme is the result... having given gifts to the supreme,

one develops supreme merit…”

Zen's four statements don't give you any benefit at all and only describe enlightenment really to people who've already experienced it.

Zen is about direct real-life experience

### A transmission not contained in teachings or texts

• this is especially controversial in the world of religious thought because every religion and philosophy depends upon having an explanation that can be given to you.

Taoism, the religion, which is primarily alchemy and its pantheon of gods, has this Tao-Way that is identical to the ontological argument for a Christian God... What can be spoken or conceived of is not the divine.

Zen is antithetical to Daoism because Zen says direct experience can't be spoken. It's not an ontological argument. It's a common sense view... If you haven't been there or had that kind of food or fallen in love, you can't know it.

The Buddha named Bodhidharma

Emperor Wu of Liang asked Great Master Bodhidharma, “What is the first principle of the holy truth?”

Bodhidharma said, “Unobstructed with nothing holy.”

The emperor said, “Who is the one facing me?”

Bodhidharma said, “I don't recognize [him].”

What is Buddhism?

At the time the Indian Buddhism that had come to China taught very specific things:

• Accumulate merit through good deeds, like building temples and copying sacred texts

• Accumulated merit improved your rebirth status in the next life.

• From repeated rebirth improvements. One could become a Buddha.

Since the Zen did not teach these things when Zen came to China, the Chinese said, "Well this is a different thing than we have been told about. We're gonna call this thing Zen."

Why people lie about Zen all the time on social media

1. They believe in something holy.

2. Facts don't matter when you believe in a holy thing.

You can always figure out whether facts matter to these people by saying, "What book did you read about Buddhism in?"

What book did you read about Zen in?

Religious people who are opposed to facts won't be willing to answer these questions.

They won't want to look fairly have their own conduct and be responsible for what they are doing in the world.

In this sense there's really no difference between Buddhism and corporate capitalism (neo-liberalism)... It is all entirely irresponsible, desire-driven impulsivity with no regard for fact.

Edit

One of the interesting things about this current social media climate (comparing this post vs the previous same post) so against Zen is that the very people that we need to advance the academic study of Zen (that is, people interested in Eastern philosophy) have been turned off by Shikantaza fraud and the sex predator scandals and the obvious stank of makebelieve fairies and elves mysticism that pervades Western Shinto-Buddhism.

But the people who hate on authentic Zen on social media, they want it that way. They want less academic work to go into Zen history. That's the real reason for the vote brigading and the harassment that we see online.

At Nan-ch’uan’s (Nansen’s) temple one day, the monks of both the east and west halls were arguing about a cat.

Nan-ch’uan came into the room, held up the cat, and said, “If you can say something, I won’t kill it. If you can’t say anything, I'll kill it.”

No one in the assembly could understand Nan-ch’uan’s mind, so he killed the cat.

The next evening, the master returned from somewhere and, while they were exchanging greetings, Nan-ch’uan told him what happened and said, “What would you have done to save the cat?”

The master took off one of his sandals, put it on his head, and left.

Nan-ch’uan said, “If you had been there, the cat would have been saved.”

Famous case!

Two sides of the temple were arguing over a cat. They don't tell you what they're arguing about.

Nansen snagged the cat and said, if you can show me your mind, I won't kill it. If you waffle, I'll kill the cat.

Nansen "killed the cat."

Nansen tells Joshu his B.S. story and asks Joshu what he would have done.

Joshu makes the usual, unusual by putting his sandals on his head. He flips the script, so to speak. Josh would have flipped Nansen if he were there.

Nansen says he would have saved the cat.

Once when the master was drawing water from the well, he saw Nan-ch’uan (Nansen) passing by.

Then, hanging on to a pillar, he extended his legs down into the well and shouted, “Save me! Save me!”

Nan-ch’uan held up a ladder and cried out, “One, two, three, four, five.”

The master immediately got up and gave his thanks to Nan-ch’uan saying, “Just now, thanks to you, I was saved.”

Joshu put himself in a well and asked for help. Signifying similarly to the previous case, that people put themselves in problematic situations.

Nansen picked up a ladder and gave him the literal steps to get out? Climb the ladder, 1-5 steps.

Joshu clearly not needing physically saved from harm gets himself out of the well, but thanks Nansen for helping him with his made up problem.

"如来说世界，非世界，是名世界” "The Tathagata says a world is not a world, so it is called a world." -Diamond Sutra

Truth is self originating, non-describable because it does not depend on any descriptors. It is what is, and it is not what it is, both of these descriptors does not touch it.

Facts are provisional, meaning it is dependent on another fact. For example, it is a fact you are reading this right now, but it is dependent on the fact that there is a you, and there is this, and that fact is dependent on the structure of the English language, and so on.

If The Word is a fact, what is the truth?

When the truth is being talked about, it is not actually truth we are referring to. And this fact, we call truth.

Read the History, Talk the History, 8-5-26

Episode #: 310

Episode: https://sites.libsyn.com/407831/zen-talking-precepts-and-enlightenment-compass-and-conspiracy

Post(s):

• https://www.reddit.com/r/zen/s/sgWSJawscL

Link to all episodes: https://sites.libsyn.com/407831

What did we talk about?

ritual, structure, enlightenment the full case with a second visit to Mazu juggling or the compass of enlightenment Do Zen Masters teach? What are Zen answers? What aren't Zen Masters telling you? Individuality vs Compass

Keep in Touch

Add a comment if there is a post you want somebody to get interviewed about, or you agree to be interviewed. We are now using libsyn, so you don't even have to show your face. You just get a link to an audio call. Buymeacoffee, so I'm not accused of going it alone:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/ewkrzen

Once the master was in charge of keeping the fires at the monastery.

One day, while everyone was out tending the garden, the master went inside the monk’s hall and shouted, “Help, fire! Help, fire!”

Everyone rushed back to the monk’s hall, but the master had closed and barred the door. No one knew what to do.

Finally, Nanch’uan (Nansen) took the key from its hook and threw it into the room through the window.'

1 In temples doors are locked from the outside.

Joshu - demonstrating how people act about seeking enlightenment. Looking outside for help.

Joshu - puts up a barrier to his enlightenment, such as people do to themselves with intellectual interpretations. How will you get inside?

Nansen - throws the key through the window (of the mind). The teacher shows him the key to get out, what he does with it is up to him. The door isn't locked. Will he let himself be free, or will he stay barricaded in the building?

The master asked Nan-ch’uan (Nansen), “Where does a person who knows what there is to know’ go to?”

Nan-ch’uan said, “They go to be a water buffalo at the house of a lay person at the foot of the mountain.”

The master said, “I am grateful for your instruction. ”Nan-ch’uan said, “At midnight last night, the moonlight came through the window.”

Green's footnote

To be enlightened to the reality of the universe and oneself — of the interdependence of all existence. This “one great fact of interpenetrating causation” was the only aspect of Buddhist doctrine that all the various sects agreed upon in Chao-chou’s (Joshu’s) time.

Green's footnote is confusing. Is this accurate?

What I see:

Joshu - Where does an enlightened person go after enlightenment?

Nansen - Here is a concept. I am showing you that you're using concepts to find something that can't be used as a concept.

Joshu - You're right, I am doing that. Here's something that my awareness showed me.

As a side: I keep writing Joshu as Josh. I'm sorry if I missed any.