(quote) "I don't rule it out. But most likely I could not have inspired in myself the sort of contempt for right speech needed to effect the contempt I inspire in grass_skirt, asking him to read me some of your comments".
Q. So, you know like how in Zen there's no suffering to solve in the first place?"
A. You didn't ask me anything.
Q. One day when Zhaozhou was in the latrine he saw Wenyuan go by. He called to him, “Wenyuan!”
A. It's because Wenyuan responded. Remember the story of the ancient worthy who was asked, “What was the intention of the Zen Founder in coming from India?” Amazed, the ancient said, “ You ask about the intention of another in coming from India. Why not ask about your own intention?"
Q. That ancient's name? Why, it was me. As a first-hand witness to the events in koan, I'm not asking, I'm telling you: the fact of Wenyuan responding doesn't tell us why Zhaozhou responded. Yet was there one who was guest and one who was host?
A. It might tell us what Wenyuan said though. If you want to know what Linji meant by "one can indeed distinguish guest and host", you've chosen the correct subreddit. AMA.
Q. Yeah, but these aren't head monks. The rules of the genre are premised on Zhaozhou being master and Wenyuan being the constipated disciple. Was it not you who cited McRae (Rule 4 of Zen studies):
>"Storytellers inevitably create heroes and villains, and the depiction of Zen’s early patriarchs and icons cripples our understanding of both the Tang “golden age” and the supposedly stagnant formalism of the Song dynasty. If one side is romanticized, the other must be vilified, and both subjects pass incognito."
A. Technically that was you citing me citing McRae. But you're always pulling that shit, so I'm gonna pass it on to the comments section, where I imagine it'll be in good company, and while it's steamy fresh and in such plentiful supply.
Q. Is that to ensure that some sticks to the wall? I smell an ad hominem.
A. It's not always fallacious, depending on the latrine.
Q. You don't deny the rumours then? You really are a mudslinger, and a hypocrite to boot.
A. If you stop derailing long enough to let my alleged derailing of your question dry into a lumpy turd, I'll let you choke on that lump or revere it as "Buddha”, as you wish. If we tally with Linji’s principle, as it were, then two head monks are the same as Zhaozhou and Wenyuan. Besides, he might have been incontinent.
As it was said of Chan Master Ruiyuan:
"He calls 'Master!' all the time, then answers himself.”
Q. ’Be alert, and don't let anyone fool you anymore.'"
A. You skipped over his previous answer.
Q. Who’s second guessing who here? “Yes?” Is a question.
Submitted January 19, 2019 at 05:52PM by grass_skirt http://bit.ly/2DlYSBO
No comments:
Post a Comment