Path: Supernews!supernews.com!newsfeed.nacamar.de!europa.clark.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.mindspring.com!usenet
From: kmccor@mindspring.com (karen)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.buddhism,alt.zen
Subject: Re: What is Koan?
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 23:24:22 GMT
Organization: none
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <33aca309.36182207@news.mindspring.com>
References: <5kp3km$gah@mackrel.fishnet.net> <5kq5hp$372@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> <863063299.19774@dejanews.com> <5ksosh$2c4@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> <337218BE.1014@mit.edu> <5ktem6$p8k@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com> <33737158.5C39@mit.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ip115.baltimore2.md.pub-ip.psi.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Server-Date: 12 May 1997 23:23:53 GMT
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.0/32.390
Xref: Supernews talk.religion.buddhism:34841 alt.zen:59110

On Fri, 09 May 1997 13:47:52 -0500, rick <stclair@mit.edu> wrote:

>Hui-neng wrote: (8th c.)
>>   "To meditate on purity is an infirmity and not Dhyana.  To restrict
>>    oneself to the sitting position all the time is unprofitable.
>
>Ned Ludd wrote:
>>    Hot DAMN, I LOVE that man!
>
>Whoa, back up the truck!
>
>This is called jumping to conclusions. Remember, Hui-neng was a devout
>Buddhist monk who took and lived by precepts, was a renunciant in all
>ways, and lived solely for the sake of the Dharma.  All he means here is
>that it is useless to dwell on issues of morality as if they were ultimate
>wisdom - they aren't. So we don't *meditate* on purity, though we *do*
>practice it!!

Huh?  Gee, I thought Hui-neng was talking about reifying purity -
setting it up as some separate "thing" to be attained.  (Btw, I think
Ned was waxing ecstatic because this quote ostensibly negates the
value of sitting, something he views as another "god-damned ritual,"
*not* because it says anything about morality or the precepts.
Although... I could be wrong.  ;)


     "Good friends, in this teaching from the outset sitting in
      meditation does not concern the mind nor does it concern purity;
      we do not talk of steadfastneess.  If someone speaks of
      'viewing the mind,' [then I would say] that the 'mind' is of
      itself delusion, and as delusions are just like fantasies, there
      is nothing to be seen.  If someone speaks of 'viewing purity,'
      [then I would say] that man's nature is of itself pure, but
      because of false thoughts True Reality is obscured.  If you
      exclude delusions then the original nature reveals its purity. 
      If you activate your mind to view purity without realizing that
      your own nature is originally pure, delusions of purity will be
      produced.  Since this delusion has no place to exist, then you
      know that whatever you see is nothing but delusion.  Purity has
      not form, but, nonetheless, some people try to postulate the
      form of purity and consider this to be Ch'an practice... Both
      'viewing the mind' and 'viewing purity' will cause an
      obstruction to Tao."

                  - Platform Sutra, Yampolsky trans., p. 139-140




karen