And for Lhk, it always comes back to hemp. :D
Printable View
And for Lhk, it always comes back to hemp. :D
How much hemp in a catty?
no googling!
:p
Click my link above.
Read the following post.
hmmmn.
58 ounces of hemp to achieve zen buddha mind. (theoretically based on one interpretation of a koan)
Get cracking on the research ~G :D
try not to write it all in crayon either.
lol
"talking about hypocracy in kung fu: shaolin monks in america banging sexy white women "
Are monks not human beings also? If you had waited..lets pick a number..45 years in a place which insisted on celibacy and you came to the good ole USA..where you were not on a mandate..and you had less restrictions, wouldn't you be inclined to maybe want to test the waters?
Only if you just read them, but don't put the teachings into practice.
Just as with Lao-tzu, who stated,
Those who know do not talk
Those who talk do not know
and then went on to write an entire treatise about Tao, Tamo, and his descendants also used words and quotes from the sutras to teach and make their point!
It isn't the quotes, it is what they teach that is important. It isn't that we know them, it is that we practice them, that is important.
As Hui-neng taught, does the Sutra turn you, or do you turn the Sutra?
I was hoping for a pic of a dude in an orange robe banging a blonde chick in a stars and stripes gi!! I hate misleading threads. :mad:
agree. to be accurate, damo never said studying sutras, chanting, lighting incense etc.. are useless.
it is only so if you do not see your nature. they will result in good rebirth, good memory, etc., but no buddha.
its important here to remember that damo himself taught from sutras, specifically the lankavatara sutra. so he himself quoted sutras.
but... he knew his mind.
punchdrunk said a stars and stripes gi, not an orange robe. Extra points for Paris tho...;)
LFJ's comment about Tamo knowing his mind is key here. Sure, there's plenty of contradictions in any multiple source doctrine, made worse by translation variation and highly subject to interpretation. That begs the 'cherry picking' idea we discussed earlier. But how to pick the right cherries to make the satori cherry pie? Because I know that if I put my mind to it, I can easily pick sour cherries and go down the wrong path. That gets back to vows of abstinence. If we take Scott's option, we can just do as we please as long as we experience it directly. Killing someone is Chan as long as we have direct experience of it. I know, that's absurd, but it's just to make the point more extreme, just for discussion's sake (but worthy of note that Tamo did advocate killing icchantikas, a concept later refuted by most Buddhist thinkers). It comes back to what LFJ says about knowing your own mind. And here's the trickiest part, if you're deluded, you probably think you know your own mind. That's the most commonly abused delusion. Just look at uki. :p
I am not sure anyone should, or even could, say with certainty what a master would do or wouldn’t do, for doing so is a result of a mind clinging to concepts. In other words, it seems inadvisable for a limited mind to categorize or artificially limit an unlimited mind and presume what an unlimited mind would or wouldn’t do!
However, if a teacher were to “not make exceptions”, as you propose, “not making exceptions” defines a limit the teacher is not willing to go beyond, thus a limit is artificially imposed. Since we both agree that “all teaching is expedient means” then one is limiting their expedient means if they are unwilling to make exceptions or compromise. One cannot use expedient means designed for each individual’s needs if they impose “artificial” limitations and ALL limitations are artificial.
Since all teaching is expedient means that means all methods are expedient means because methods ARE teachings. Therefore small vehicle is an expedient means as well and just as valid as any other limited method.
Small vehicle is criticized because it is not complete teaching; it fails to take one all the way across, so to speak, because it tends to lead to the clinging to concepts. However, all teachings tend to lead to the clinging to concepts. The small vehicle is just one rung on a ladder that will eventually lead one to complete realization and therefore is just a valid expedient means as any other expedient means.
All teachings of any kind, including gestures and actions are merely expedient means, they are limited and therefore equal in that none of them can take anyone all the way across to the other shore. We can only do that for ourselves.
It is clinging of any kind that binds us to delusion, not actions or methods.
Hi Gene,
There are “plenty of contradictions” not just because of translations, etc, there are “plenty of contradictions” because they are inherent within a system of teaching that recommends the use of “expedient means”. When teachings are tailored to the individual what is appropriate for one is not necessarily appropriate for another, so “seeming” contradictions will be apparent to those caught within the web of conceptual thinking.
Pointing directly to mind, to those caught within the web of conceptual thinking, creates contradictions within the world of concepts and distinctions, the world in which most of us live. The way to get beyond those contradictions is by directly perceiving WITHOUT conceptual interference. Once this occurs contradictions resolve themselves.
You prefer to practice “austerities” or “abstinence” that is fine for you, but they are not required nor are they necessary. Neither is abstinence from eating meat, killing, or any other of the precepts taught within Buddhism. These practices are expedient means only and none of them produce a mind free of conceptual thinking. This is because they are actions, not Mind. In fact clinging to them, as is clinging to any teachings, practices, or anything at all, creates a hindrance to obtaining a mind free of conceptual thinking. That is not to say that one would not benefit psychologically or physically from such practices, but they are not necessary or required when addressing a clinging mind. Clinging is a condition of mind that is dealt with through/with/by Mind. All other behaviors and actions are window dressing and unnecessary!
In fact a realized one COULD do whatever they pleased even to the point of killing others, but that does NOT mean they WOULD do it, and herein lies the error of those who make statements such as yours. There is a difference between COULD and WOULD! Just because someone COULD do something does not mean they WOULD do something. I COULD drink alcohol, but I do not do so, therefore I COULD do it, but that doesn’t mean I WOULD do it. You COULD eat meat, even though you are a Buddhist, but that doesn’t mean you WOULD do it.
The question of whether a realized one could murder and rape without accruing karma is “specifically” addressed within the Tun-huang Texts, which I remind readers are the oldest known Ch'an writings. And the question of killing is addressed within the Bhagavad-Gita as well. I don’t have my copy of the Tun-huang texts with me, but this principle is addressed in either Record I or Record II I believe.
It isn’t that one would have a “direct experience of it” that would make it acceptable, it is that karma is created a by clinging mind, not by performing actions. Karmic consequences are created as a result of mind, not of action! Further, just because a Master performed such an action does not mean he would not, or should not, accrue world-system consequences for that action. We still live within a world system that does not approve of such behavior.
Herrigel’s error was in using reason/conceptual means to justify practicing a behavior outside of its intended context, a principle he did not understand.
expedient means in the chan school is unlimited so long as it is leading one to attain true mind, not to continue clinging to self or dharmas.
dont attach to the concept of "expedient means" here.
same with teaching small vehicle doctrine, or even that of an external path.Quote:
In fact a realized one COULD do whatever they pleased even to the point of killing others, but that does NOT mean they WOULD do it, and herein lies the error of those who make statements such as yours. There is a difference between COULD and WOULD! Just because someone COULD do something does not mean they WOULD do something. I COULD drink alcohol, but I do not do so, therefore I COULD do it, but that doesn’t mean I WOULD do it. You COULD eat meat, even though you are a Buddhist, but that doesn’t mean you WOULD do it.
do you have an example of a master in the chan school teaching someone to follow one of these paths rather than attain their nature?