5 ms·

You might like the Gateless Gate by Mumon. http://oaks.nvg.org/gate-struggles.html http://oaks.nvg.org/gate-struggles.html Hui-Neng's "Your Minds Move" The

You might like the Gateless Gate by Mumon. http://oaks.nvg.org/gate-struggles.html http://oaks.nvg.org/gate-struggles.html Hui-Neng's "Your Minds Move" The wind was flapping a temple flag, and two monks started an argument. One said the flag moved, the other said the wind moved; they argued back and forth but could not reach a conclusion. The Sixth Patriarch Hui-Neng said, "It is not the wind that moves, it is not the flag that moves; it is your minds that move." Joshu sees the Hermits Joshu went to a hermit's cottage and asked, "Is the master in? Is the master in?" The hermit raised his fist. Joshu said, "The water is too shallow to anchor here," and he went away. Coming to another hermit's cottage, he asked again, "Is the master in? Is the master in?" This hermit, too, raised his fist. Joshu said, "Free to give, free to take, free to kill, free to save," and he made a deep bow.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago
Ok, cute, but does it mean anything? Of course the wind moved the flag. Are they all ignorant of physics? No of course not. Its some metaphysical plug about relationships or something. One of those 'one hand clapping' things. I guess the point is to get you to stop overanalyzing. Which I'm doing. But no, I didn't get my mind blown by monks in semantic circles. I guess I'm not ready to be enlightened.
- procgen 6y ago
  A koan is a tool intended to be wielded by a teacher. I've never found it helpful to read them, anyway - it seems to miss the point. Language only obscures the fundamental truth.
- karatestomp 6y ago
  Lots of those stories come off as more wanky and esoteric than they're supposed to. That one... maybe not, but most are supposed to be approached with a lot more context than a Westerner with little exposure to Buddhism (and especially the history of and other stories about the monks involved in the stories) is likely to have, going in cold. They're not supposed to be nearly as confusing as they can seem (or, at least, should be differently-confusing) when one reads without some guiding commentary to fill in the gaps in knowledge one is expected to have before approaching them.
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    That sounds a lot like a post-facto apologist slant. Sure you can 'explain them' but everybody hears them where their mind is at now. And for most folks, especially junior monks just starting out, they might sound wanky too.
    - karatestomp 6y ago
      > That sounds a lot like a post-facto apologist slant. Uh, no. Lots of them definitely rely on knowing who the monks are, their reputations, and their relationships to one another. And other facts about the world in which they occur ("Three pounds of flax!"). One is not even going to get at the interesting parts of them without that. Lots will come off as gibberish or as confusing in ways that they are not intended to be without that context. > Sure you can 'explain them' but everybody hears them where their mind is at now. It's not about explaining them, it's about the coming-to-terms phase of reading from How to Read a Book. Even smart folks would probably have a bad time approaching a graduate-level math text book without a little context so they get where it's even starting from and understand the references and vocabulary that the book was written assuming the reader would already have.
    - state_less 6y ago
      I think they are supposed to be 'esoteric and wanky' for the beginner, like 'mu' and 'one hand clapping' - even for the eastern audience. The idea, if I understand it correctly, is to get your mind hung up on a solution until you either get frustrated, or find your way out of the conundrum. I hope I didn't do any harm here. I was hoping to share some of what I thought was pretty mind bending.
      - karatestomp 6y ago
        Even for the first story in Gateless Gate it's probably intended that the reader know what "mu" means and the orthodox Zen Buddhist position on who/what does or does not have Buddha-nature—and WTF "buddha-nature" is—before tackling it. Those parts aren't supposed to be mysterious.
- carapace 6y ago
  The first one is literal: there is no wind, there is no flag. The physical universe is as a reflected image on the surface of a lake, illusory. However, the "level" at which that is true is above/below/beyond the "level" at which there "really" is wind and flag.
- pftburger 6y ago
  There is no wind there is no flag there are no monks only your mind. Its really not just semantics. Skip the Buddhism and go read Andy Clark's Surfing Uncertainty. Its humorously written, its current science and it'll blow your mind ;)
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    I thought I understood what 'semantics' meant; that statement makes zero sense with my understanding.

JoeAltmaier 6y ago

Ok, cute, but does it mean anything? Of course the wind moved the flag. Are they all ignorant of physics? No of course not. Its some metaphysical plug about relationships or something. One of those 'one hand clapping' things. I guess the point is to get you to stop overanalyzing. Which I'm doing. But no, I didn't get my mind blown by monks in semantic circles. I guess I'm not ready to be enlightened.

procgen 6y ago
A koan is a tool intended to be wielded by a teacher. I've never found it helpful to read them, anyway - it seems to miss the point. Language only obscures the fundamental truth.
karatestomp 6y ago
Lots of those stories come off as more wanky and esoteric than they're supposed to. That one... maybe not, but most are supposed to be approached with a lot more context than a Westerner with little exposure to Buddhism (and especially the history of and other stories about the monks involved in the stories) is likely to have, going in cold. They're not supposed to be nearly as confusing as they can seem (or, at least, should be differently-confusing) when one reads without some guiding commentary to fill in the gaps in knowledge one is expected to have before approaching them.
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  That sounds a lot like a post-facto apologist slant. Sure you can 'explain them' but everybody hears them where their mind is at now. And for most folks, especially junior monks just starting out, they might sound wanky too.
  - karatestomp 6y ago
    > That sounds a lot like a post-facto apologist slant. Uh, no. Lots of them definitely rely on knowing who the monks are, their reputations, and their relationships to one another. And other facts about the world in which they occur ("Three pounds of flax!"). One is not even going to get at the interesting parts of them without that. Lots will come off as gibberish or as confusing in ways that they are not intended to be without that context. > Sure you can 'explain them' but everybody hears them where their mind is at now. It's not about explaining them, it's about the coming-to-terms phase of reading from How to Read a Book. Even smart folks would probably have a bad time approaching a graduate-level math text book without a little context so they get where it's even starting from and understand the references and vocabulary that the book was written assuming the reader would already have.
  - state_less 6y ago
    I think they are supposed to be 'esoteric and wanky' for the beginner, like 'mu' and 'one hand clapping' - even for the eastern audience. The idea, if I understand it correctly, is to get your mind hung up on a solution until you either get frustrated, or find your way out of the conundrum. I hope I didn't do any harm here. I was hoping to share some of what I thought was pretty mind bending.
    - karatestomp 6y ago
      Even for the first story in Gateless Gate it's probably intended that the reader know what "mu" means and the orthodox Zen Buddhist position on who/what does or does not have Buddha-nature—and WTF "buddha-nature" is—before tackling it. Those parts aren't supposed to be mysterious.
carapace 6y ago
The first one is literal: there is no wind, there is no flag. The physical universe is as a reflected image on the surface of a lake, illusory. However, the "level" at which that is true is above/below/beyond the "level" at which there "really" is wind and flag.
pftburger 6y ago
There is no wind there is no flag there are no monks only your mind. Its really not just semantics. Skip the Buddhism and go read Andy Clark's Surfing Uncertainty. Its humorously written, its current science and it'll blow your mind ;)
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  I thought I understood what 'semantics' meant; that statement makes zero sense with my understanding.