XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen   
   From: wudao@wuji.net   
      
   brian wrote:   
   > {:-]))) wrote:   
   >> brian wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>The zen anecdote I quoted (and may have misquoted: the term at the end   
   >>>may have been "the Way", or "the Path of the Buddhas", or something   
   >>>else) was recorded and preserved because it illustrates a specific   
   >>>aspect of zen teaching. It is hoped that *that* meaning falls out of   
   >>>it. To put one's own meaning into it is, in zen terms, to go the wrong   
   >>>way.   
   >>   
   >>When you say, *that* meaning, you have a meaning in mind.   
   >   
   >Yes, but it's not *my* meaning. It's the meaning seen in the incident   
   >by the particular commentator who made the record. I don't have a clue   
   >what *that* meaning is.   
      
   Was it Mumon who made the commentary?   
      
   I would think that wherever the story came from, that *that*   
   would be found going along with that story.   
      
   Other than that, I don't really know what *that* might be.   
      
   It does remind me of the TTC a bit, as an accreted text.   
   A statement is made in passing around a campfire.   
   Then, another passage is added to it.   
   Someone else says, thus, hence,   
   and another writes it all down.   
      
   >>>That said, I did use the anecdote to piggy-back a question of my own   
   >>>regarding the form and substance of action performed by one that   
   >>>realizes their true nature. It doesn't seem to be a question that has   
   >>>caught the interest of anyone else, though.   
   >>   
   >>The question of what one's true nature is,   
   >>assuming there exists such a critter to begin with, arises.   
   >>   
   >>It appears to me that you have a, *that*   
   >>which is able to be put into words, anecdotally.   
   >   
   >Able to be indicated, or perhaps even demonstrated, most often through   
   >a question-and-answer format. The *that* isn't put into words, but the   
   >words may lead the listener's mind to it. The words are clues, they   
   >are not random nonsense, and neither are they the verbal equivalent of   
   >a Rorschach test.   
      
   As a listener then, yourself, what did the story mean, to you?   
   And, has that meaning changed at times?   
      
   I don't recall ever hearing it before.   
   But it's been a while since reading the Mumonkan   
   assuming that's where the story is found.   
      
   >>If it is one's true nature to dance in the dining room on a table   
   >>a Zen Master might do that to show the monks on the one hand   
   >>clapping and flapping his arms in an unusual Way.   
   >>   
   >>The table for One, in the middle, may be unreserved.   
   >>   
   >>Perhaps the Master shouts, enlighten up!   
   >>   
   >>Get with it. Groove on it. Don't be so sullen, monks.   
   >>Ummmmmmm might appreciate such a Master.   
   >>   
   >>Then, some of the monks, who can't handle the energy,   
   >>leave that monastery because of, *that*   
   >>which was not that, *that* that they had in mind.   
   >   
   >I'm sure that happened often.   
      
   It's been said that when one has had enuf, one is cured.   
   Of asking *that* question, for a spell.   
      
   When I attended a Zen class it was very enjoyable for me.   
   In a monastery, perhaps my joy would have been too much.   
   Maybe some Master would have slapped the silly off my face   
   to return me to some more original form of shock and awe.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)