I assure you that all things have been free from bondage since the very beginning. So why attempt to explain them? Why attempt to purify what has never been defiled? Therefore it is written: The Absolute is thusness—how can it be discussed? You people still conceive of Mind as existing or not existing, as pure or defiled, as something to be studied in the way that one studies a piece of categorical knowledge, or as a concept—any of these definitions is sufficient to throw you back into the endless round of birth and death.
The man who perceives things always wants to identify them, to get a hold on them. Those who use their minds like eyes in this way are sure to suppose that progress is a matter of stages. If you are that kind of person, you are as far from the truth as earth is far from heaven. Why this talk of 'seeing into your own nature'?
Huangbo Xiyun [died 850?]: On the Transmission of Mind, translated by John Blofeld, 1958
________________________________________________________________________________________
Wandering Ronin commentary and questions: Apparently, if I say a single thing about these teachings then I am a liar, haha. It is really quite strange to me the hypocrisy involved in people telling us that we aren't supposed to present what we think we know of the teachings. Could their apparent dissonance with things be seen as attempting to purify what has never been defiled?
Isn't the whole point of the forum to present what we we know in order to test it before others? What is not accurate here will not stand for long, that's for sure. But then again, even the Zen master's themselves could not say a single true word about the Dharma.
Submitted June 07, 2019 at 08:13PM by WanderingRoninXIII http://bit.ly/319l2Rw
No comments:
Post a Comment