Tsu T'ang Chi (139)
TC Nguyen
One day, the great master was reading sutta. Ba.ch Nga.n said (1) :
- Sir, stop reading. ... (2)
The great master folded the sutta, asked Ba.ch Nga.n :
- What is the position ( of the sun ? )? ( What time is it ? )
Replied :
- Noon time.
The great master said :
- Still there are multicolor brocades of words.
Replied :
- No is no.
The great master said :
- You are so intellgent !
( Ba.ch Nga.n ) asked :
- I am like that, how about you ?
The great master said :
- Crave crave, grasp grasp, up up, down down, one hundred bad deeds, one
thousand faux pas, with this ( I ) pass my time. (3)
========================================
Notes
(1) Original text : Ba.ch Nga.n asked, but his saying is not a question,
so I
change.
(2) This sentence is not comprehensible.
b¤t døng : do not use
than : to display
nhân : man
ð¡c dã : is good.
TTTNL change the whole saying : you forbid people to read, if you do not
stop
reading, you lie to people.
And the author do not have note for the change. Later, if it turn out he
is wong,
then next generations will be mislead.
(3) Yueh Shan excell only in one face. The other face he was negligent.
Ned Ludd
Nguyen) writes:
>
> ttc139
> One day, the great master was reading sutta. Ba.ch Nga.n said (1) :
> - Sir, stop reading. ... (2)
> The great master folded the sutta, asked Ba.ch Nga.n :
> - What is the position ( of the sun ? )? ( What time is it ? )
> Replied :
> - Noon time.
> The great master said :
> - Still there are multicolor brocades of words.
> Replied :
> - No is no.
> The great master said :
> - I am like that, how about you ?
> The great master said :
> - Crave crave, grasp grasp, up up, down down, one hundred bad deeds,
> one thousand faux pas, with this ( I ) pass my time. (3)
> ========================================
> Notes
> (1) Original text : Ba.ch Nga.n asked, but his saying is not a
> question, so I change.
> (2) This sentence is not comprehensible.
> than : to display
> nhân : man
> ð¡c dã : is good.
> TTTNL change the whole saying : you forbid people to read, if you
> do not stop reading, you lie to people.
>
That works. But you could also state it pretty much like you've
itemized it: "Sir, do not use (sutras) to show man is good."
> And the author do not have note for the change. Later, if it turn
> out he is wong, then next generations will be mislead.
All words mislead.
> (3) Yueh Shan excell only in one face. The other face he was
> negligent.
>
This is such a fine line. Better the way you first said it:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crave crave, grasp grasp, up up, down down, one hundred bad deeds,
one thousand fumble steps, with this I pass my day. - a dead Zennie
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tang Huyen
Ned Ludd wrote: <<All words mislead.>>
Ah, Ned, do those words of yours mislead, too?
Tang Huyen
Ned Ludd
Ned:
> All words mislead.
Tang:
> Ah, Ned, do those words of yours mislead, too?
>
A poison fit for the disease. If the truth were in a certain set
of words, I'm sure Buddha would have told us those words.
Ned
A. Von Störenfried
How about the verbal form (in the case of Buddhism) as a symbol of
unthinkable reality? How does that grab your dendrites, Ned?
Regards,
AvS
Ned Ludd
writes:
Ned (to TC):
>> All words mislead.
Tang:
>> Ah, Ned, do those words of yours mislead, too?
Ned:
> A poison fit for the disease. If the truth were in a certain set
> of words, I'm sure Buddha would have told us those words.
Ardent:
> How about the verbal form (in the case of Buddhism) as a symbol
> of unthinkable reality? How does that grab your dendrites, Ned?
>
Why do you wish to symbolize unthinkable reality? Conze used to
brand most zen talk as "discussing the Absolute", and then he'd
slam a lid on it saying, "Well, the Absolute can't be described,
so the less said about it the better." Is that where this is
headed?
Ned
A. Von Störenfried
I think Conze is confused as to the difference between using words which
act as mere symbols of the unthinkable and using words as literal
equivalents of the unthinkable--or maybe you are.
Regards,
AvS
Ned Ludd
writes:
Ned (to TC):
>>> All words mislead.
Tang:
>>> Ah, Ned, do those words of yours mislead, too?
Ned:
>> A poison fit for the disease. If the truth were in a certain set
>> of words, I'm sure Buddha would have told us those words.
Ardent:
>> How about the verbal form (in the case of Buddhism) as a symbol
>> of unthinkable reality? How does that grab your dendrites, Ned?
Ned:
> Why do you wish to symbolize unthinkable reality? Conze used to
> brand most zen talk as "discussing the Absolute", and then he'd
> slam a lid on it saying, "Well, the Absolute can't be described,
> so the less said about it the better." Is that where this is
> headed?
Ardent:
> I think Conze is confused as to the difference between using words
> which act as mere symbols of the unthinkable and using words as
> literal equivalents of the unthinkable--or maybe you are.
>
Well let's see. Here's a Conze quote: (From just about 20 years
ago, in a rant he made to the British magazine "The Middle Way"
shortly before he died.)
"It is true that Buddhists have traditionally said, again and again,
that the Truth cannot be expressed in words. But that verdict does
not apply to the whole range of religious truth. It is restricted
to the Unconditioned, as distinct from the conditioned. The
Unconditioned, which corresponds to the Absolute of European
philosophy, is indeed inexpressible. The less one says about it
the better, for anything said about it is untrue by the mere fact
that it has been said... In consequence _The Middle Way_ would
probably gain if we were to hear less about full enlightenment or
on such questions as why toads cannot "claim" to be enlightened.
Also we might well hear less about the bliss of living without
a Self. Such experiences can only be celebrated by Aryan silence.
"On the other side however, there is the vast field of conditioned
existence, as systematically explored in the Abhidharma, and
there, far from being irrationalistic, the Buddhist tradition has
always excelled by its precision, and by the unambiguity of its
definitions. So there is very much in the end left that is
accessible to the intellect, but of that we hear remarkably
little."
- Edward Conze, Winter 1979, "The Middle Way"
So, as you might detect in (or between) the lines quoted above,
I don't think Edward Conze was ever "confused" about anything.
He appeared to have clear, rigid demarcations separating every
word and thought that went through his brain.
Being dead, he cannot answer your question, and far be it from me
to speak for him. I suspect he had no confusion whatsoever about
the difference between symbols and literal equivalents.
Ned
Jo Smith
>In <382FC1...@idt.net> "A. Von Störenfried" <ard...@idt.net>
>writes:
>
>Ned (to TC):
>>>> All words mislead.
>
>Tang:
>>>> Ah, Ned, do those words of yours mislead, too?
>
>Ned:
>>> A poison fit for the disease. If the truth were in a certain set
>>> of words, I'm sure Buddha would have told us those words.
I believe the Buddha gave us the path to the experience (in/thru his words).
What he did to get the experience. If we like, we can test the path and -
maybe - we will have the same experience. The path is not the experience.
I can eat a banana and have the experience of tast. I cannot give that
experience to another (thru words), but I can tell them how I came by that
experience. They can test the path I took if they like, or not.
I think the story of getting the finger mixed up for the moon is relevant
here.