Tsu T'ang Chi (140)
TC Nguyen
Venerable Min'h Khe^ was chatting with the great master. After Mi'nh Khę
had
gone, the great master said to Yun Yen :
- Venerable Mi'nh Khe^ was a high rank officer ( tie^'t sa't ?).
Yen asked :
- Sir, what was you doing before ?
The great master said :
- Crave crave, grasp grasp, up up, down down, one hundred bad deeds, one
thousand fumble steps, with this ( I ) pass my time.
Yen bowed down, then left. He brought the anecdote to Tao Wu, Wu said :
- That's a great anecdote, but there still missing a question.
Yen asked :
- What is the question ?
Tao Wu said :
- Why is it so ?
Yen have the question, he came back to the great master and continued
the
conversation ( with Nan Ch'una ) :
- Why is it so ?
The great master said :
- The book is still not opened. (1)
Later, this anecdote was brought to Tha.ch Su+o+ng.
Tha.ch Su+o+ng said :
- Still does not open his book. (2)
===============================
NOtes
(1) Wrong.
(2) Tha.ch Su+o+ng had sharp eye.
margaret
reads like some weird kind of Buddhist soap opera, and your notes to the
text seem cryptic. Is this some kind of personal research you are sharing?
And if so, why? I'm intrigued.
MdB
robinandlynne
just, or even more, remarkable than Lord Buddha for hearing and
recognizing him. (Heads up, revisionist Marxist theory coming at ya.) I
am completely willing to accept T.'s declaration of stream entry. Why
not?
TC Nguyen
>
> TC, after all this time I still can't figure out what you're up to!
You want to blow off my cover ? Try it.
> It
> reads like some weird kind of Buddhist soap opera, and your notes to the
> text seem cryptic.
It's soap opera more than 1000 years old. If you don't like the show,
just skip .
There are a lot more interesting soaps now on those news group, make
your choice.
> Is this some kind of personal research you are sharing?
> And if so, why? I'm intrigued.
>
> MdB
Don't know. I am intrigued too.
In this news group now, the show of strean entry is going on for a
while.
I wonder too.
When someone claims something, true or false I don't know, is it better
to hear what he wants us to know ?
But I see the reaction of people here quite hysteric.
When Buddha first preached, he claimed that he was enlightened.
He did it, to catch his interlocutors attention.
People here don't blame the Buddha for that, is it because he is Buddha
?
Did Buddha boasted when he claimed that ?
I do not read all the thread about this topic, but some gives me the bad
feelings.
Theravad claims the lower fruit of the 4. And people attack his claim as
un-ethical.
I don't see people analize what he writes, and show where is his flow.
If he talks non sense, any title he has claimed is not worth.
People are obcessed with title, too bad.
If a professor in math cannot resolve some benigm problems, then he is
not worth to the title professor of this field.
If you are Margarett, claim it. Don't be shy.
Hey Ned, claim something. I want to but I am not fast talking enough to
answer all those fast talking guys.
Ned Ludd
Nguyen) asks:
Margaret asked:
> Is this some kind of personal research you are sharing?
> And if so, why? I'm intrigued.
TC:
..
> People are obsessed with title, too bad. If a professor in math
> cannot resolve some benign problems, then he is not worthy of the
> title professor of this field. If you are Margaret, claim it.
> Don't be shy. Hey Ned, claim something. I want to but I am not
> fast talking enough to answer all those fast talking guys.
>
Crave crave, grasp grasp,
up up, down down,
one hundred bad deeds,
one thousand missteps,
with this I pass my day.
Ned
margaret
in my ear, it was a simple enough question. *Ne-ver-mind* (deep patient
sigh)!
All the best
MdB
margaret
robinandlynne wrote in message <382F934A...@earthlink.net>...
>Yeah, I've thought the same things.
Glad I wasn't the only one! I was beginning to think that it was blatantly
obvious to everyone except me...
>I
>am completely willing to accept T.'s declaration of stream entry. Why
>not?
Well, I'm bored rigid by the stream entry discussion - personally I couldn't
care less if he proclaims himself to be Buddha Shakyamuni in person. Still,
I am also more than willing to accept it if it means the discussion will die
a rightfull death!
MdB
Buddha Baby
Ya silly grrrrrl!
You're the one who doesn't know what's going on here. TC's 'soap opera' is a translation
of a text which features some truly eminent Big Daddies in Zen Buddhism - Tianhuang
Daowu and Yunyen Tansheng. The Yunmen and Fayan Zen sects sprung from Tianhuang's
lineage; while Dongshan Liangjie, founder of the Caodong (Soto) sect, was a protege of
Yunyen. And also, this "Xu Tang Ji" (T'su T'ang Chi) was an influential text* for Hakuin
Ekaku - founder of the Japanese Rinzai Zen sect.
Got it? Okay, you can return to your dorje-twirlings now... ;-)
BB.......(deep impatient growl!)
*warning: grapefruit-snare ahead!
margaret
>You're the one who doesn't know what's going on here.
Mmmm, interesting : I wonder where the extraordinary idea that I was
implying that anyone other than myself didn't understand this thread came
to you from? Certainly not from my post!
>TC's 'soap opera' is a translation >of a text which features some truly
eminent Big >Daddies in Zen Buddhism -
My my, Buster babes you do get tetchy quickly. All I meant was that since
the text is (for me) cryptic and hard to follow, the dialoguing of strange
names came across like some exotic television serial. It was meant to be a
*light hearted comment*, not the blistering insult that you and TC did not
hesitate to read into it. Head-biting and leaping down throat apart, I so
appreciate your charitable impulse of taking pity on the abysmal depths of
my foolish ignorance and filling me in on the details. Of course, I know
almost nothing about Zen. But then, how much do *you* know about
*Vajrayana*? Exactly. I didn't think so. Your boots have suddenly shrunk,
babes - get yourself a new pair. However, as kindly presented as it may
have been, the information you provided was *not* the main thing I was
interested in, as I apparently failed to make clear. It was pretty obvious
(even to me) from the start that the various dialogues were between Zen
Buddhists. What *I* wanted to know was *why* he posts this information in
such a strange, arcane format - apparently without any desire whatsoever to
engage in interaction regarding the contents! For instance : Perhaps he is
preparing a dissertation at University and wishes to share it as he goes
along. Perhaps he is conducting research for a book and feels that other
scholars might be interested. Do you see what I mean? A few deep breaths
and clearer thinking next time, babes.
>Got it? Okay, you can return to your dorje-twirlings now... ;-)
Will be dorje-*hurling* soon if you don't watch your lip! I have a whole
stack of em waiting >;-)
>BB.......(deep impatient growl!)
Oooh - *er* I'm all a-t-t-t-remble
>*warning: grapefruit-snare ahead!
better be a *very* gentle throw or you'll trip over in those teeny weeny
pinchy baby booties heeheehee
MdB (tying on her walking DMs)
Buddha Baby
>>Ya silly grrrrrl!
>>You're the one who doesn't know what's going on here.
>
>Mmmm, interesting : I wonder where the extraordinary idea that I was
>implying that anyone other than myself didn't understand this thread came
>to you from? Certainly not from my post!
I'm being a gentleman here. :-) Just thought I'd erred on the side of extreme
conservatism when it comes to Miss MdB and her grasp of Zen. And I'd also imagined that
you were one of those sweet dames who liked having a chivalrous cavalier spread his cape
over a puddle for her feet. Obviously I was mistaken. Alrightie then, I shall take no
prisoners the next time...
>>TC's 'soap opera' is a translation of a text which features some truly
>eminent Big Daddies in Zen Buddhism -
>
>My my, Buster babes you do get tetchy quickly. All I meant was that since
>the text is (for me) cryptic and hard to follow, the dialoguing of strange
>names came across like some exotic television serial. It was meant to be a
>*light hearted comment*, not the blistering insult that you and TC did not
>hesitate to read into it.
You're treading onto dangerous territory here. Male Zennists like TC and moi take our
Zen texts very seriously indeed. With their descriptions of the exploits of the ancient
patriarchs, these Zen texts are the last anachronistic vestiges of male dominance - in
this age of sexual equality. Hence our tetchiness when a gal bumbles in and likens them
to soap operas! It's a guy-thing, you wouldn't understand. :-)
>Head-biting and leaping down throat apart, I so
>appreciate your charitable impulse of taking pity on the abysmal depths of
>my foolish ignorance and filling me in on the details. Of course, I know
>almost nothing about Zen. But then, how much do *you* know about
>*Vajrayana*? Exactly. I didn't think so. Your boots have suddenly shrunk,
>babes - get yourself a new pair.
Ohhh! I hang my head in shame.
>However, as kindly presented as it may
>have been, the information you provided was *not* the main thing I was
>interested in, as I apparently failed to make clear.
That was very apparent! You need to use sincere and down-to-earth English when
communicating with the respectably strait-laced TC. Save your usual flirtiness for the
other worldlier dudes here. :-)
>It was pretty obvious
>(even to me) from the start that the various dialogues were between Zen
>Buddhists. What *I* wanted to know was *why* he posts this information in
>such a strange, arcane format - apparently without any desire whatsoever to
>engage in interaction regarding the contents!
You're just like that case of the man who was shot with an arrow. He refused to let a
doctor extract the arrow until he knew the caste, village, age and martial status of the
man who had shot him. Needless to say, he croaked his last breath soon enough...
Likewise TC has been spreading a veritable feast before our eyes all these years, and
you refuse to eat it! Ingrata! Perfidia! Mobile! ;-)
>For instance : Perhaps he is
>preparing a dissertation at University and wishes to share it as he goes
>along. Perhaps he is conducting research for a book and feels that other
>scholars might be interested. Do you see what I mean? A few deep breaths
>and clearer thinking next time, babes.
Seriously, I would also appreciate TC Nguyen telling us why he does this 'labor of love'
for the benefit of TRB. One of the pleasures of logging onto TRB is reading these
informative translations from the Ch'an texts. I would like to take this opportunity to
thank TC for his endeavors.
>>Got it? Okay, you can return to your dorje-twirlings now... ;-)
>
>Will be dorje-*hurling* soon if you don't watch your lip! I have a whole
>stack of em waiting ;-)
I'm quaking in my baby booties already. ;-)
>>*warning: grapefruit-snare ahead!
>
>better be a *very* gentle throw or you'll trip over in those teeny weeny
>pinchy baby booties heeheehee
I think it's time I changed my usenet ID. :-(
>MdB (tying on her walking DMs)
'Dungeon Masters'??? Oh gawd, I didn't know you were into S&M!
BB (deep, contented gurgle now)
TC Nguyen
>
> >Ya silly grrrrrl!
> >You're the one who doesn't know what's going on here.
>
> Mmmm, interesting : I wonder where the extraordinary idea that I was
> implying that anyone other than myself didn't understand this thread came
> to you from? Certainly not from my post!
>
> eminent Big >Daddies in Zen Buddhism -
>
> My my, Buster babes you do get tetchy quickly. All I meant was that since
> the text is (for me) cryptic and hard to follow, the dialoguing of strange
> names came across like some exotic television serial. It was meant to be a
> *light hearted comment*, not the blistering insult that you and TC did not
> hesitate to read into it.
I answer your question my way, that's all.
You asked what I am up to,
if I am not up to something, I cannot tell you,
If I am up to something, I don't want people to know
So my answer is up to you to find it.
I wonder why you ask me this question, since many before me did the job
as I do.
Suzuki, the Cleary etc...
Will you ask them the same question as you did to me ?
> Head-biting and leaping down throat apart, I so
> appreciate your charitable impulse of taking pity on the abysmal depths of
> my foolish ignorance and filling me in on the details. Of course, I know
> almost nothing about Zen. But then, how much do *you* know about
> *Vajrayana*? Exactly. I didn't think so. Your boots have suddenly shrunk,
> babes - get yourself a new pair. However, as kindly presented as it may
> have been, the information you provided was *not* the main thing I was
> interested in, as I apparently failed to make clear. It was pretty obvious
> (even to me) from the start that the various dialogues were between Zen
> Buddhists. What *I* wanted to know was *why* he posts this information in
> such a strange, arcane format - apparently without any desire whatsoever to
> engage in interaction regarding the contents! For instance : Perhaps he is
> preparing a dissertation at University and wishes to share it as he goes
> along. Perhaps he is conducting research for a book and feels that other
> scholars might be interested. Do you see what I mean? A few deep breaths
> and clearer thinking next time, babes.
>
> >Got it? Okay, you can return to your dorje-twirlings now... ;-)
>
> Will be dorje-*hurling* soon if you don't watch your lip! I have a whole
> stack of em waiting >;-)
>
> >BB.......(deep impatient growl!)
>
> Oooh - *er* I'm all a-t-t-t-remble
>
> >*warning: grapefruit-snare ahead!
>
> better be a *very* gentle throw or you'll trip over in those teeny weeny
> pinchy baby booties heeheehee
>
Corneille
> "margaret" <marg...@mdebethlen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >My my, Buster babes you do get tetchy quickly.
>
> You're treading onto dangerous territory here. Male Zennists like TC and moi take our
> Zen texts very seriously indeed. With their descriptions of the exploits of the ancient
> patriarchs, these Zen texts are the last anachronistic vestiges of male dominance - in
> this age of sexual equality. Hence our tetchiness when a gal bumbles in and likens them
> to soap operas! It's a guy-thing, you wouldn't understand. :-)
>
To be fair, one ought to know that zennies were by far the most femisnists of all
buddhists.
Se for instance this:
When the monk Kuan-ch'i Chih-hsien14 was travelling from place to
place [looking for a teacher] he came to Mo-shan. Before [meeting
Liao-jan, the abbess of Mo-shan] he said to himself, "If this
place is all right, then I will stay. If not, then I will overturn
the Ch'an plaftform (that is, show up the ignorance of the
teacher)." So saying, he entered the hall.
Liao-jan sent an attendant nun to ask: "Are you merely
sightseeing, or did you come for the Buddha Dharma?"
Chih-hsien replied, "For the Buddha Dharma." Liao-jan then
ascended to her seat. Chih-hsien asked for instruction. Liao-jan
asked,
"Where did you start your journey today?" Chih-hsien replied,
"From the entrance to the road (lit., from the mouth of the
road)."
Liao-jan said, " Why didn't you cover it?" Chih-hsien had no
reply. He then for the first time performed a kneeling bow to her.
He asked,
"What is Mo-shan (lit., summit mountain)?" Liao-jan said, "Its
peak is not exposed." Chih-hsien said, "What is the occupant of
Mo-shan like?" Liao-jan replied, "(S)he has neither male nor
female form (hsiang.)" Chih-hsien shouted,
"Why doesn't she transform herself?" Liao-jan replied, "She is not
a spirit, nor a ghost. What would you have her become?"
Chih-hsien at this could only submit. He became a gardener at the
nunnery, where he stayed for three years.15
Later after Chih-hsien became a Ch'an master, he acknowledged
Liao-jan's instruction to his disciples. He said, "When I was at
Lin-chi's place I got half a ladle, and when I was at Mo-shan's
place I got another half-ladle. Obtaining the full ladle that has
enabled me to satisfy my hunger until today."16
margaret
want people to know>So my answer is up to you to find it.
Fair enough! It's a free world, especially here. I really didn't intend to
be rude, TC, I was merely intruiged by the person behind the posts, and what
made him/her "tick". Like I said to BB, I'm born curious.
>I wonder why you ask me this question, since many before me did the job
>as I do.>Suzuki, the Cleary etc...>Will you ask them the same question as
you did to me ?
No. When a very well-known Buddhist teacher like Suzuki brings out a book,
9 times out of 10 it is because their students have requested it, so I
wouldn't be curious about Suzuki. Cleary I haven't read because with one
exception I mistrust most Western Buddhist teachers. From those that I've
read, they have a tendency to present a mish mash of ideas from various
schools, and lack consistency and commitment. In other words, their ego
comes through too much, to my mind. So I'm not curious about Cleary at all.
But when I see an Asian whose name I am not at all familiar with presenting
a learned work on the net without any personal "clues" as to who they are or
why they are doing it, then I am very curious and I do ask! All the more so
when I would like to be able to understand what they write and can't!
Having said all that, I actually sort of admire you for insisting on
maintaining your cloak of secrecy. I might not be able to appreciate your
text, but on behalf of those who can - keep up the good work!
Oh, by the way : The other reason I asked you questions was that I used to
have this fantasy that maybe it would feel a bit lonely for you to produce
all that hard work and have very little interaction with others about it.
But clearly it's not like that. Have a good holiday (I heard elsewhere
you're off until 2000)
MdB
Buddha Baby
>Buddha Baby a écrit:
>
>> "margaret" <marg...@mdebethlen.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >My my, Buster babes you do get tetchy quickly.
>>
>> You're treading onto dangerous territory here. Male Zennists like TC and moi take our
>> Zen texts very seriously indeed. With their descriptions of the exploits of the ancient
>> patriarchs, these Zen texts are the last anachronistic vestiges of male dominance - in
>> this age of sexual equality. Hence our tetchiness when a gal bumbles in and likens them
>> to soap operas! It's a guy-thing, you wouldn't understand. :-)
>>
>
>To be fair, one ought to know that zennies were by far the most femisnists of all
>buddhists.
>Se for instance this:
>
> When the monk Kuan-ch'i Chih-hsien14 was travelling from place to
> place [looking for a teacher] he came to Mo-shan. Before [meeting
> Liao-jan, the abbess of Mo-shan] he said to himself, "If this
> place is all right, then I will stay. If not, then I will overturn
> the Ch'an plaftform (that is, show up the ignorance of the
> teacher)." So saying, he entered the hall.
[snip]
> Later after Chih-hsien became a Ch'an master, he acknowledged
> Liao-jan's instruction to his disciples. He said, "When I was at
> Lin-chi's place I got half a ladle, and when I was at Mo-shan's
> place I got another half-ladle. Obtaining the full ladle that has
> enabled me to satisfy my hunger until today."16
Thank you for this pointer, Corneille. You must realize of course that my banter with
MdB was of the tongue-in-cheek variety, and not intended to deprecate the outstanding
nuns who have contributed to the development of Ch'an (esp. modern-day Ch'an).
Still, I have to comment that Mo-shan was an exceptional and rare example - of an
outstanding Ch'an matriarch in classic Ch'an history. BTW, there is a variant of the
story you'd cited; in <http://www.hsuyun.org/Dharma/ZBOHY/xybook/xy_12.html>. Check it
out.
Regards,
BB
margaret
TC has probably gone now, but just in case, here's my post.
>I answer your question my way, that's all.>If I am up to something, I don't
want people to know>So my answer is up to you to find it.
Fair enough! It's a free world, especially here. I really didn't intend to
be rude, TC, I was merely intruiged by the person behind the posts, and what
made him/her "tick". Like I said to BB, I'm born curious.
>I wonder why you ask me this question, since many before me did the job
>as I do.>Suzuki, the Cleary etc...>Will you ask them the same question as
you did to me ?
No. When a very well-known Buddhist teacher like Suzuki brings out a book,
9 times out of 10 it is because their students have requested it, so I
wouldn't be curious about Suzuki. Cleary I haven't read because with one
exception I mistrust most Western Buddhist teachers. From those that I've
read, they have a tendency to present a mish mash of ideas from various
schools, and lack consistency and commitment. In other words, their ego
comes through too much, to my mind. So I'm not curious about Cleary at all.
But when I see an Asian whose name I am not at all familiar with presenting
a learned work on the net without any personal "clues" as to who they are or
why they are doing it, then I am very curious and I do ask! All the more so
when I would like to be able to understand what they write and can't!
Having said all that, I actually sort of admire you for insisting on
maintaining your cloak of secrecy. I might not be able to appreciate your
text, but on behalf of those who can - keep up the good work!
MdB