GENIUS FORUMS

Depends on the origin of the "ganja."

Reid Iford wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> I find the entire concept of debate -- partuicularly of the kind here -- antithetical to an awakened Buddha Heart. <hr> I can sympathize with this view. In many ways, engaging in a one-on-one debate can be demeanining and petty. But it depends on how each party approaches it. I always look at it as an opportunity to articulate some wise thoughts and sound reasonings, rather than focusing on the gladiatorial aspects of it. I believe that if one approaches any discussion or debate with pure motivations and love of truth, then it can become a very powerful form of communication.


--


Robert Larkin wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> With regard to framing the topic I would like to hear your suggestions since it was I who made the challenge. Naturally I would decline to debate what isn't worth debating but I'm sure you can suggest some relevant topics. <hr> You can choose. Anything to do with wisdom, truth, enlightenment, etc.

Be sure to tell us how we might observe the battle.

Kevin

----------------------------------------------------
John quoted Hakuin:
Quote:
----------------------------------------------------
"...he will surely come to see that the ground where the ancients lived and functioned is not found at any level of intellectual understanding."
----------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately, your intellectual understanding of that teaching is wrong. However, Hakuin's teaching is correct when properly understood. Hakuin is referring to the deluded use of the intellect, rather than the enlightened use of it. In fact, of all the different kinds of Zen Buddhism, Hakuin's school of Buddhism is the most intellectual of all. That's why I favour it.

I would like to continue with this if you don't mind.

Here is the full quote that I originally posted.

"Well, if a person really has a mind to reach the basic ground that has been realised and confirmed by the Zen patriarchs, it is by no means impossible. As a start, he should work on the koan 'Does a dog have Buddha Nature?' If he concentrates on it single-mindedly and keeps at it for a long time without wavering or faltering, he is certain to break through to realisation. He must not stop there, however. He must cast all that he has attained aside, and turn to tackle one of the difficult-to-pass koans. If he proceeds this way, he will surely come to see that the ground where the ancients lived and functioned is not found at any level of intellectual understanding."

Hakuin is advising the use of koans - here is one attempt at a description of koans

"The koans do not represent the private opinion of a single man, but rather the highest principle ... [that - tmc ] accords with the spiritual source, tallies with the mysterious meaning, destroys birth-and-death, and transcends the passions. It cannot be understood by logic; it cannot be transmitted in words; it cannot be explained in writing; it cannot be measured by reason. It is like [...] a great fire that consumes all who come near it." (Chung-feng Ming-pen [1263-1323] quoted in Miura and Sasaki 1966:5)

Note: "It cannot be understood by logic; it cannot be transmitted in words; it cannot be explained in writing; it cannot be measured by reason."

And as is often stated when studying koans, "Begin to reason about it and you at once fall into error."

So, if your understanding is different please state it.

John
Edited by: John at: 1/31/04 10:11 pm

The koans do not represent the private opinion of a single man...

So do the Koans represent the opinions of many men, developed over the ages, or do the koans have an inherent existence of their own meaning they just appeared.

Is the writer a koan or a man?

jimhaz
----------------------------------------------
The koans do not represent the private opinion of a single man...
----------------------------------------------
So do the Koans represent the opinions of many men, developed over the ages, or do the koans have an inherent existence of their own meaning they just appeared.

Koans are used to break through delusion, they have been used by many, have been ratified by many.

Is the writer a koan or a man?

A lion!

John

John wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>I would like to continue with this if you don't mind.

"The koans do not represent the private opinion of a single man, but rather the highest principle ... [that - tmc ] accords with the spiritual source, tallies with the mysterious meaning, destroys birth-and-death, and transcends the passions. It cannot be understood by logic; it cannot be transmitted in words; it cannot be explained in writing; it cannot be measured by reason. It is like [...] a great fire that consumes all who come near it." (Chung-feng Ming-pen [1263-1323] quoted in Miura and Sasaki 1966:5)

Note: "It cannot be understood by logic; it cannot be transmitted in words; it cannot be explained in writing; it cannot be measured by reason."

And as is often stated when studying koans, "Begin to reason about it and you at once fall into error."<hr>

My understanding is identical to the above, but different to your understanding.

Think of it this way: If you meditate on the question "Does a dog have Buddha Nature?" but without reasoning about it one iota, where do you think it will get you? Answer: absolutely nowhere.

Hakuin was strongly against people who simply sat and meditated, and contemplated their navel. That's why he used koans, and spoke in a very colourful and complicated fashion - to inspire thought.

Nagarjuna's writings are nothing more than a series of very tight reasonings that lead to enlightenment. As they are a true spiritual teaching, they also constitute a koan.

Hakuin is directing his teaching at people who are attached to a certain kind of reasoning very common in society, and an extreme form of it is found in academic circles. That common kind of reasoning has two characteristics:

1. Remoteness or having the nature of compartmentalization. The person treats the reasoning process as a kind of game, or exercise. He doesn't think with his whole being, sacrificing his soul, so to speak, at each step of the reasoning, but holds himself back, at a distance, merely watching on.
2. It it is based on false concepts of inherent existence.

Hakuin doesn't want people to think about the question "Does a dog have Buddha nature?" using the ordinary reasoning I have outlined, because they will only be wasting their time, and his. He is trying to indicate to his students that they need to discover an altogether different kind of reasoning. It is the reasoning of the enlightened person - true reasoning.

Here is a koan from Jesus:

Quote:Quote:<hr>It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am
the All. From me did the All come forth, & unto me did the All come forth, & unto me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, & I am there. Lift up the
stone, & you will find me there.<hr>

Now the ordinary person can't understand that with their ordinary reason can they?

Edited by: ksolway at: 1/31/04 11:48 pm

Oh? So your 'pure' reason (which is no different to Kants) has become 'true' reason? All reason is true if it is reason Kevin.

You're afraid of reasons degrees?!

"The koans do not represent the private opinion of a single man…... It cannot be understood by logic; it cannot be transmitted in words; it cannot be explained in writing; it cannot be measured by reason. It is like [...] a great fire that consumes all who come near it." (Chung-feng Ming-pen [1263-1323] quoted in Miura and Sasaki 1966:5)

I just think the statement is logically inconsistent and contradicts itself.

If it said -

A Koan's purpose cannot be understood by logic; cannot be transmitted in words or explained in writing and cannot be measured by reason, until, the highest principle that accords with the spiritual source, tallies with the mysterious meaning, destroys birth-and-death, and transcends the passions, has become inherent to ones nature.

Then I could make sense of it.

ksolway
-------------------------------------------------------
John wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Note: "It cannot be understood by logic; it cannot be transmitted in words; it cannot be explained in writing; it cannot be measured by reason."

And as is often stated when studying koans, "Begin to reason about it and you at once fall into error."
-------------------------------------------------------

My understanding is identical to the above, but different to your understanding.

Think of it this way: If you meditate on the question "Does a dog have Buddha Nature?" but without reasoning about it one iota, where do you think it will get you? Answer: absolutely nowhere.

This is where you are mistaken and you have never studied koans properly.

That's why he used koans, and spoke in a very colourful and complicated fashion - to inspire thought.

You really don't have any idea.

One could say that koans use a language, it's called the language of the 'Uncreate'.

Here is a koan from Jesus:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------
It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am
the All. From me did the All come forth, & unto me did the All come forth, & unto me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, & I am there. Lift up the
stone, & you will find me there.
--------------------------------------------------------

Now the ordinary person can't understand that with their ordinary reason can they?

If you confuse these words of Jesus as koans you are again mistaken. They are fine words but they are not remotely akin to a koan.

As you are so firmly fixed in your mistaken views I'll leave it at that. Good luck to you but I'll leave you with a koan that one day you may benefit from.

Layman Pang visited the Great Master Ma-Tsu and asked, "Who is the one that does not accompany the ten thousand dharmas?" Ma-Tsu replied, "When you have swallowed all the waters of the West River in one gulp, then I shall tell you."

At these words Layman Pang was thoroughly enlightened.

John

John wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>Kevin: Think of it this way: If you meditate on the question "Does a dog have Buddha Nature?" but without reasoning about it one iota, where do you think it will get you? Answer: absolutely nowhere.

John: This is where you are mistaken.<hr>

I notice that you provide no reasons why you think I'm mistaken. But if you don't believe in using reason then you're hardly going to be able to discuss this matter.

Quote:Quote:<hr>Jesus: It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the All. From me did the All come forth, & unto me did the All come forth, & unto me did the All extend. Split a piece of wood, & I am there. Lift up the stone, & you will find me there.

John: They are fine words but they are not remotely akin to a koan.<hr>

If that's what you think, then I think you are one of those who Hakuin says "belittle the Buddha-patriarchs of the past".

Edited by: ksolway at: 2/1/04 2:22 am

Isn't Buddhism based primarily on reason? That is my understanding anyway...

Edit: as is any other philosophy, even the words Jesus spoke are typically based on reason... Edited by: cassiopeiae at: 2/1/04 2:31 am

Of 'QRS'? Do all three of you folks set up as being enlightened? Do you claim Buddhahood or something? To be Buddhas or Bodhisattvas?

If all three of you are posing as enlightened men then I hope we can get all three of you into the debate to very publicly consider the nature of the enlightenment you claim. Three against one should be no worry for you at all. After all you are hardly hiding the fact you are geniuses, and it's certainly reasonable that the Buddha, Lao-tzu, Nagarjuna, and others would also trumpet themselves loudly.
_____

John,

We're working on forum titles. Got any ideas?

These people will never admit the ineffable: you can't brag about it.

Quote:Quote:<hr>Of 'QRS'? Do all three of you folks set up as being enlightened? Do you claim Buddhahood or something? To be Buddhas or Bodhisattvas?<hr>

We certainly don't claim to be Buddhas, but we would claim to be enlightened, allowing for minor differences in definition.

Quote:Quote:<hr>If all three of you are posing as enlightened men then I hope we can get all three of you into the debate to very publicly consider the nature of the enlightenment you claim.<hr>

We've been doing precisely that for many years.


Quote:Quote:<hr>Three against one should be no worry for you at all.<hr>

I'm sure you'll be satisfied with David's responses.

Robert

We're working on forum titles. Got any ideas?

Here's one idea.

The Red-Tailed Carp

With this verse as a front piece. It's taken from the Book of Serenity, case 35 with a couple of small changes.

Wagging his head, shaking his tail, the red-tailed carp;
Independent through and through, he knows how to turn around.
Even if he has the art to cut off tongues,
Pulling his nose around subtly conveying the spirit.
Outside the screen of luminous jewels, wind and moon are like day;
In front of the cliff of dead trees, flowers and plants are always in spring.
Tongueless man, tongueless man,
The true order's completly upheld in one knowing phrase.
Walking alone in the kingdom, clear and comprehending,
Let everyone in the land be happy and joyful.

John

Quote:Quote:<hr>Does a dog have Buddha Nature?<hr>


The dog IS Buddha Nature.

This is not a question or an answer, it is pointing to ones attachment to appearances.

To separate, catagorize or differentiate between Buddhas, dogs and Reality is attachment and clinging.

But if you want to get technical, the answer to the Koan is....The Eye can not see itself.

My apologies for the delays, Robert and David. I was offline all day yesterday occupied elsewhere. We should be able to set something up by sometime tomorrow, though, if not later tonight (in my timezone, anyway; if you're in Australia, David, I think it may already be tomorrow ;)).

I'll let you know, and I'll put up a link when I do.

Well, it wasn't suppoosed to be tough to spot, Dave. ;)

Leo,

I will be appearing only as someone who reasons well and who has familiarity with the issues involved. I claim neither religious nor academic authority. I am not enlightened and if I was I wouldn't admit it. Whether or not I have any understanding bears not one iota on whether you can develop understanding. However, given the adequate ability to reason and the familiarity with relevant issues, let me warn you that anyone concerned with 'levels' of enlightenment and other such gibberish has already developed an impediment to understanding. These 'levels' likely serve only to assign spiritual rank and let me guess that Quinn, Rowden, and Solway are well up the list of spiritual attainments. If 'spiritual attainment' belies humility, then your levels are counterproductive and egotists have sold you a bill of goods.

This debate could be enjoyable based on continuing interest in eastern ideas. We have as well David who claims to be enlightened and his conceptions can certainly be compared with canonical interpretations. In addition his ideas will be subjected to analysis of the order of 'Would the Buddha quote Weininger?' In a forum where he cannot automatically appeal to his own authority David's ideas can receive a reasonable test.

Except for reading a few Dan Rowland posts, and I believe they were on The Ponderer's Guild although perhaps it was KIR, I did not know these gentlemen or what they were about until just a few days ago reading material linked on KIR. As someone who has long argued for the inherent wisdom of certain ideas from Buddhism and Taoism I am appalled that important ideas have been claimed by buffoons for their own egotistical uses.

Why don't we save it for the debate, Robert. Or is it your intention to get in a few early kicks before the bell starts?

It was not my intent to have written anything other than updates about the debate. However, Leo asked his question and I answered it.

The tentative format will be 'four constructive posts' followed by 'four rebuttal posts'. The order:

Constructive:
David
Robert
David
Robert

Rebuttal:
Robert
David
Robert
David

The difference between the two: Issues are developed in the constructive while rebuttals serve only to support and rebut prior arguments. This means that while 'new information' can be introduced in the rebuttals new issues cannot. I could not, for instance, in my last post suddenly throw in the argument 'David's view is heterodox in Buddhism.' If I had earlier introduced the argument, in my first or second post, I could not only continue to consider it in the rebuttals but also introduce new evidence.

It has been proposed that there be a 24-hour response time and I personally have no problems with that.

Hey, that sounds great! Just a few questions. Will ESPN cover it and when can we see it? Who is going to act as umpire? Standard ITF Tennis rules, I suppose?

Looking forward to it.

Thomas

Alright, David and Robert. The debate has begun. The thread is here:

<a href="http://pub138.ezboard.com/fponderersgui ... 9.topic</a>

You have 24 hours to put up your opening argument, David.

This should be exciting.

It ought to be good reading. If I had the time, I'd like to debate one of the QRS myself. I may have to find the time, assuming that one of them wished to participate.