Line by Line Debate Experiment: Teaching Ordinary Mind

Text from Cleary's great scholarship fail, interpretation for discussion/debate by me:

Chao-chou was asked "Is a person with a normal mind still to be taught?"

1. A famous Zen teaching is, "Ordinary Mind is the path that Buddha teaches".
2. So, Chao-chou is being asked, "If Ordinary Mind is the path, does a person of ordinary mind need to be taught about Buddha, or the path, or anything else?

Chao-chou said, "I don't go through such a person's door".

1. "Go through such a person's door" means "go visit them" or "go to their house"
2. Going to somebody's house would include both teaching them and being the guest to their host.

The monk asked, "Then wouldn't it be someone sunk into the beyond?"

1. If Chao-chou is saying he wouldn't visit them, and Chao-chou teaches about (or visits those who say) ordinary mind being the path of Buddha, then doesn't that mean that a person who Chao-chou doesn't visit isn't ordinary?

Chao-chou retorted, "A fine 'normal mind'?"

1. Chao-chou is overly fond of double and triple entendres. Here, Chao-chou is saying that someone who is "sunk into the beyond" isn't ordinary, a contradiction which forfeits the argument.
2. Chao-chou is also arguing that the monk's imaging of someone with a normal or ordinary mind that could be taught isn't the sort of thing a normal mind would imagine.

.

ewk ^book note ^index - I got into an argument about this text a couple of days ago because somebody said it didn't make any sense and I said, sure, it makes sense. So, here is how I explained it. Feel free to disagree.

Submitted July 10, 2017 at 09:06PM by ewk http://ift.tt/2tzV0bx