#Zen master Mumon

[buddhismnow]

Morning Meditation — The Great Way has no gate.

Morning Meditation — The Great Way has no gate. https://wp.me/pFy3u-7Xz

‘The Great Way has no gate, a thousand different paths. If you pass through this gateless gate, you’ll walk freely in the Universe.’ Zen master MumonFrom the Mumonkan Dandelion in the railings. On our Twitter account, Buddhism Now @Buddhism_Now, most mornings we post a ‘morning meditation’ like the one above. On the net, of course, it’s morning, afternoon, evening, or nighttime 😀…

[commonplacebuddhism]

It is so clear that it takes long to see.

— From Mumonkan by Chinese Zen master Mumon Ekai, quoted by Alan Watts in The Meaning of Happiness: The Quest for Freedom of the Spirit in Modern Psychology and the Wisdom of the East.

[mystacoceti]

Gutei raised his finger whenever he was asked a question about Zen. A boy attendant began to imitate him in this way. When anyone asked the boy what his master had preached about, the boy would raise his finger. Gutei heard about the boy's mischief. He seized him and cut off his finger. The boy cried and ran away. Gutei called and stopped him. When the boy turned his head to Gutei, Gutei raised up his own finger. In that instant the boy was enlightened. When Gutei was about to pass from this world he gathered his monks around him. `I attained my finger-Zen,' he said, `from my teacher Tenryu, and in my whole life I could not exhaust it.' Then he passed away.

Mumon's comment: Enlightenment, which Gutei and the boy attained, has nothing to do with a finger. If anyone clings to a finger, Tenyru will be so disappointed that he will annihilate Gutei, the boy and the clinger all together.

Gutei's Finger from The Gateless Barrier, Wumen Huikai, tr. Nyogen Senzaki and Paul Reps

[the-dewdrop-read-deep]

Please Take a Seat - Yamada Mumon Roshi on the Power of Sitting Meditation

“(Buddhism) sits, deeply rooted in the great earth, gazing at it, its eyes cast downward, and proceeds to merge with it.”– Yamada Mumon RoshiTweet ‘Sitting can be a very serious matter,’ according to the Japanese Zen master Yamada Mumon Roshi, who passed away in 1988 and whose teachings have been brought together in a new book called Hakuin’s Song of Zazen. In this excerpt, Mumon contrasts the…

[ask-gpt]

Mumon's Comment: "The enlightened man is not subject to Karma." How can this answer make the monk a fox? "The enlightened man is not free from the law of karma." How can this answer release him from his fox's life? If you have one eye in regard to this, then you understand Hyakujo's dramatic 500 rebirths.

Mumon's Comment: "The enlightened man is not subject to Karma." How can this answer make the monk a fox? "The enlightened man is not free from the law of karma." How can this answer release him from his fox's life? If you have one eye in regard to this, then you understand Hyakujo's dramatic 500 rebirths. The enlightened man is not subject to karma. "The enlightened man is free from God" is a contradiction in the Buddha's teaching.2.5 The 'The Enlightened Man's Truth'When the Buddha says: "O ye that believe! O ye that believe!"O ye who believe! O ye who believe! O ye who believe! These two words in the Buddha's discourse, when he exhorts those who can hear to speak to speak, or listen: "O ye that believe! O ye that believe! O ye that believe! O ye that believe! O ye that believe! O ye that believe!" The Zen master is not free from Karma. The Dharma-nature is not subject to Karma.I cannot answer 'the Buddha's Truth' without showing that there are four other points for which a true Zen monk could not answer:1. If you see yourself with all your own eyes looking at the three eyes that are two separate beings which are separated by the four points of the meditational compass:What you see in the third body: that of the Buddha as it appears to you in the first; then what you see in the second body is the Buddha's body, the same, but the third is not.That first body is not the Buddha because it never appears in the second body, but because it is different in the first body. But the third is the Buddha. The second body is not so because it is neither the Buddha nor the Dharma. We see it now all the time, in the other, also this body-body line, in the second body. As a result, we say: "O ye that believe!"2. The 'Sanskrit Buddhist Monastery'A Buddhist monk, who is not a person who is not a person in the sense below, is called the Sanskrit Buddha. And because he does not have any distinction between himself and the others, his teachings are not the same.Thus, it is not the Buddha or the sanskrit-sanskrit monks who are responsible for these teachings. But they too, like the others, have their own sense.That sense is not the same, because that sense has two kinds, the sense which is 'objectified' by the other and the sense which is 'disguised' by the Buddha. When the two kinds of 'objectified' are different, they can be separated by that difference

[kluifduiker]

The background story of this Koan Sekiso asked: "How can you proceed on from the top of a hundred-foot pole?" Another Zen teacher said: "One who sits on the top of a hundred-foot pole has attained a certain height but still is not handling Zen freely. He should proceed on from there and appear with his whole body in the ten parts of the world." The full text of the Koan is even more frightening than the short version for its about sitting on top of a terrible high pole. Nobody knows exactly why Sekiso quotes this story. I think he wanted to test his disciples. It's said, he once visited a cousin who was a famous Zen-master. When Sekiso arrived at this monastery he shouted fire, fire, fire. All the monks ran away to look for the fire. Including the master. Sekiso turned around and went away. It's the same with this pole. It's high, high high. Keep your balance, don't fall down. Don't move, the old master warned. Respond like Sekiso did at his cousin's monastery. Just walk away. There was no fire, there is no pole.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The original Chinese Goang Venerable Shishuang said, "So, how do you step forward from the top of a one hundred foot pole?” Also, a virtuous one of old said, “A person, for shelter, sits on top of a one hundred foot pole. Even if he is able to enter like that, it is not yet the real. He must step forward from the top of the one hundred foot pole. The world of ten directions manifests the complete body.”

[liberatingallselves]

Idle Thoughts While Walking Joshu’s Dog.

A monk asked Joshu, “Has a dog Buddha nature?”

Joshu replied, “Mu!”

Writings and talks on the koan “Joshu’s Dog” often invite us to place ourselves in the sandals of the monk who asked the question, “Has a dog Buddha nature or not?” Some go on to suggest that the monk is really asking if he, himself, has Buddha nature.

A core belief of Buddhism is that every sentient being has Buddha nature. In the previous post I suggested that core beliefs form the cornerstone of the self. If you take one away, the self begins to fall apart. If the monk is questioning his core belief we may suppose that he is at a crossroads or even in crisis. Perhaps he has failed to realize his own essence, so is now wondering if he has any Buddha nature at all. Instead of assuring him on this matter Joshu unhesitatingly says, “Mu!” which means “no” or “no thing” in Chinese.

Putting ourselves in the monk’s position might be easier if we consider that he’s really asking about his own worth or value. This is a question that we can all identify with because we have all asked it on multiple occasions. Yet when it is asked of Joshu he does not say we are good, he does not say we are bad. Following the Zen statement that “One should not discuss a dream,” he says ‘no thing’ and in doing so invites us to go beyond good and bad.

How we view our selves, as worthy or unworthy, is a core value of a self that is, after all, just a collection of thought that we have falsely identified as our true nature. Of this Zen Master Hakuin Ekaku wrote,

“Although it is nothing but dreamlike, illusory fancied thoughts, it can block the Great Matter of seeing into one’s own nature more effectively than an army of a hundred thousand demons. Sometimes it is called illusory thoughts, sometimes the root of birth and death, sometimes the passions, sometimes a demon. It is one thing with many names, but if you examine it closely you will find that what it comes down to is one concept: that the self is real.”

When we believe the self is real we get caught up in whether a dog has Buddha nature or not, which is the Zen equivalent of asking, “Why do I feel so bad?” The question is meaningless because it is arises out of a false identification of the “I” with the feeling state called “bad.” It’s dung on a stick. The answer, however, isn’t meaningless because mu asserts that you are neither good nor bad. You are ‘no thing’. Not as in nothingness, the opposite of existence, but as That which comprehends all thought but is never itself thinkable.

In koan introspection, realizing that you are mu, no thing or no self requires the development of great doubt. Doubt that your concept of self is what you truly are, not doubt in your ability to realize this. So each time you find yourself believing that you are good or not good, worthy or unworthy, you cut through this belief with the sword of mu. If you don’t believe you can because you are too weak, cut through that belief with the sword of mu. When you drop the sword, pick it up again. Keep cutting until you have cut your way through the forest of thought. “Then,” as Mumon said in his comment on the koan, “your previous lesser knowledge disappears.” The self you believed was you is no longer seen to be real.

When you’ve reached the point where the self is seen as just a collection of thought, you automatically ask, “What am I?” You are but you are not thought or feeling. You cannot think or feel your way to an answer so the mind pauses. At this point  the light of awareness may now turn back upon itself to know itself as mu. But if you say instead that you are this or that, “If you say yes or no, you lose your own Buddha-nature.”

[sangha-scaramuccia]

La responsabilità individuale - 4

Con Affetto per il Grande Meditante Istriano Tullio Shiryo

Caro Tullio,

Qui è Leo. Reiyo.

L’ultimo nostro sguardo è stato un sorriso, in cucina, e sono certo che da parte di entrambi ci sia stato un volersi bene, come è da sempre, fin dalla prima volta che ci siamo incontrati.

Spero che tu possa mantenere la certezza del mio affetto per tutta questa mia, perché sarà presente anche se ti cazzierò per benino, date le tue uscite.

Ogni volta che ti vedo in perfetto assorbimento meditativa nel tempio, e quindi alzarti con fatica ma coraggio dalla posizione seduta, ho in me un tremito di gioia. Ecco un uomo, mi dico.

Quando seppi che te ne eri andato avrei voluto chiamarti, perché ero quasi certo di saperne la ragione, ma si era in sesshin; ti avevo sentito già affermare le più ridotte convinzioni materialiste, come se non esistesse altro da ciò che tu pensi, e avevo in me sentito un certo desiderio di fartici inciampare.

Sapevo che lì stava l’inghippo della tua nottata.

Ho una domanda, che non vuole essere insidiosa ma di precisazione: Perché dici che sto fabbricando una macchina per far piovere o per fermare i terremoti?

Già non stavi attento e ti fumavano le orecchie. 

Qualcuno può ricordare a Tullio cosa ho detto davvero?

Qualcuno gli può precisare il contesto?

Shiryo, veramente pensi “che se fossebbe davvero vero tutti lo si sapressero”?

Ti avevo preannunciato il cazziatone, non avertene a male, te lo sei voluto. Proseguiamo.

A parte il povero Reich, a cui la mia vita dovrebbe adattarsi ma non capisco perché, la attività svolta da un privato cittadino - che è anche maestro di dharma - cosa c’entra con l’etica della chaplaincy (che ben conosco)? Alla Buddhist Society di Londra ci sono stato pure io, ed alla mia conferenza assistette con piacere Keith Alker, allora organizzatore della formazione alla chaplaincy per la Buddhist Society che, oltre a partecipare alla conferenza, mi ha anche visto operare una guarigione senza battere ciglio e non perché fosse inglese, dato che dopo si è complimentato e che mi ha salutato contento. 

Tullio, è mai possibile? Un parere diverso espresso in pubblico durante l’ora del tè non sai reggerlo?

Dovremmo tutti pensare ai tè sotto il pergolato come ad un campo minato?

Inoltre: siamo tutti sotto l’esame, che so, di Burioni? O di un calcolatore elettronico?

La scienza non mi fa schifo tutta, Shiryo, e sono certo che ci siano persone aperte e capaci di usarla come uno-degli-strumenti-possibili-d’indagine oltre che in una prassi sensata e efficiente; infatti pochi giorni fa ero a pranzo con Luc Montagnier e con sua moglie Suzanne, una occasione allegra e intima*1. Luc Montagnier, con il suo staff, ha scoperto il virus dell’AIDS, gli hanno dato il Nobel, coriandoli & stelle filanti, poi ha detto qualcosa che non andava sui vaccini – senza iattanza e in modo circostanziato - ma da quel momento…  Beh, puoi controllare su Wikipedia come l’hanno trattato. Lui e tutti gli altri; e questo dovrebbe forse farci rizzare le orecchie piuttosto che farci tirare per ipnosi palate di merda anche noi a quei ricercatori che dicono cosa vedono seguendo una profonda motivazione etica a proprio rischio e pericolo.

E il cielo solo sa quanto rischiano.

Oltre a ciò conosco anche quegli avvocati che hanno raccolto decine di migliaia di casi di reazioni avverse molto estreme e conclamate, che sarebbero soltanto quelle riconosciute come tali; fra queste c’è anche la reazione avversa invalidante della mia compagna, che riusciremo comunque a far camminare di nuovo e che si è salvata, dietro ammissione di un amico neurologo perché, dopo la paralisi postvaccinale, ha smesso di curarsi con le terapie allora in uso per arginare l’effetto dei vaccini e si è rivolta a omeopatia e nutraceutica. 

Se non si era capito, mi occupo di ricerca “non edulcorata” o se preferisci “di confine”, quella che non si basa sugli azzeramenti automatici dell’up-to-date-main-stream; quindi non sono “uno contro” come il povero Reich, né complottista né terrapiattista come certamente spereresti.

Mio caro Tullio, sulla storia dello zen, e quindi a riguardo di come dovrebbe essere un maestro zen, finiresti in un ginepraio; chissà che idea ti faresti del Prof. Harrison col quale ho chiacchierato a Stanford, dato che anche lui si è accorto di cosa si insegnava davvero nel chan cinese e in quello… Tibetano.  

Forse scapperesti perfino da Stanford o ti rifugeresti di corsa nella facoltà di fisica. 

Ah, già “le materie umanistiche non sono vera scienza” questo te l’ho sentito dire Shiryo, e c’era presente anche Nanmon quindi, che so, l’epistemologia si produrrebbe grazie a una calcolo stechiometrico. Bene. 

Gentilmente il prof. Harrison permise a che potessi fare uso di una sua versione del Sutra del Diamante per corredare il commento del Maestro Taino su quel prezioso testo.

A che non mi dimenticassi il nostro dialogo, il professore mi regalò il testo del “Sutra della Meditazione di Amitayus” tradotto da Takakusu3ab*; il sutra che citò nero su bianco Hongren, il quinto patriarca, come la base della pratica meditativa chan. 

Ma basterebbe già solo andare indietro fino al periodo Kamakura per accorgersi di cosa ha perso lo zen in Giappone con il giro di vite Meiji, e di quanto ha fatto Mumon per risvegliarlo, peraltro seguendo l’insegnamento di Kawaguchi Ekai – noto esoterista tendai che studiò il tantrismo in Nepal sotto l’ala di Chandra Das - ed essendo guarito dal GUARITORE Kono Daikei. Leggiti la biografia di Mumon e lo vedi da te4*; Filippo Pedretti, un mio allievo, sta laureandosi proprio su Mumon a riguardo del quale ascoltò le mie memorie. Ci si applica con una dedizione che mi ha commosso e che mi ha ricordato la passione dei pionieri dell’orientalismo di metà novecento.

È questo che sono andato, personalmente, a recuperare indietro, nella storia dei secoli passati. 

Sì, io, con questa faccia di tolla, ma onesta. E questo ho sistematizzato in un testo, divulgativo, ovviamente, dato che nessuno legge più, o che legge solo ciò che gli fa comodo5*.

Mi pare che nel nuovo medioevo della quantità, o se vuoi “techné”, che ci ha del tutto sbullonato con la logica dello 0 / 1 informatico facilitandoci la vita con immani complicazioni numeriche, ci stia il fatto che al posto di telefonarmi per dirmene 4, ti venga in mente piuttosto di protestare dal Maestro su quanto 1 tizio (n) avrebbe detto. Muoversi dall’1 al 4, sarebbe stata una faticaccia, senza contare che restando “n” darei meno noia, perché in questo caso, Tullio, sarei solo al massimo 1’inopportuno a caso, fuori dalle casistiche che contano. Sarei isolato. Lo so, ti capisco, così si fa prima, ma è che invece per vivere ed abitare le relazioni ci vuole calore e non basta cliccare sulla tastiera o scivolare col dito sul trackpad.

Per dire che, Tullio, il monitor ci darà sempre ragione, perché online troveremo solo quello che ci farà comodo vedere. 

Il guaio sarebbe se ragionassimo nello stesso modo.

Perché non rendere scientifico anche lo zen?

Già c’è qualche distratto che lo definisce antimetafisico; forse voleva solo dire “antitrascendentalista” ma gli si annodava la lingua.

Ribadisco: nonostante il cazziatone hai il mio affetto, ed è solo per quello che ti sto rispondendo, per avere poi un più pacato dialogo. 

Ora io spererei di parlarti di persona, Tullio, e spererei nelle tue scuse, data la tua rielaborazione di quanto ho detto che, sono certo, sia dovuta solo a smemoratezza o a rabbia momentanea.

Non credo che si debba rimanere in quel luogo dove tu mi sorridi distante però ti incavoli perché per te risulta i-na-mis-si-bi-le qualcosa che ho detto o che vivo, e dove io cerco di irritarti con qualche commento ironico mentre scendo gli scalini del bagno.

Rammentiamoci un attimo da dove siamo partiti. Io ero un ragazzino-monaco che frequentava il tempio sulla collina di Scaramuccia con dedizione, e tu un uomo più maturo che aveva trovato nella meditazione e nel Maestro Taino una guida.

La vita ci ha portato in diverse direzioni, in percorsi che rendono differenti gli uomini ma soprattutto interessati a cose differenti. 

Io e te, due fratelli distanti ma vivi, e che presumibilmente non saranno mai d’accordo. 

Ma andrebbe anche bene così.

Allego anche qualche nota e qualche foto per scansare ogni dubbio data la veemenza alla quale sono stato soggetto  

Leo Reiyo

1* Foto con Montagnier  

2* Vedi: Zen Master Engaku Taino, Zen Master Reiyo Ekai, A Commentary on the Diamond Sutra  Fontana Editore

3a* e 3b* Foto libro regalato dal Prof. Harrison con sua firma

4* Vedi: My Spiritual Home - Autobiography by Yamada Mumon Roshi 

5* Vedi: Leonardo Anfolsi Reiyo Ekai, Zen Naikan, Fontana Editore

[buddhismnow]

Morning Meditation — Asked why he taught mind is Buddha.

Morning Meditation — Asked why he taught mind is Buddha. https://wp.me/pFy3u-8k4

Asked why he taught mind is Buddha Ma-tsu said ‘to stop a baby crying’.The Monk then asked ‘What’s it like when the baby stops crying?’Ma-tsu said ‘No mind no Buddha’. Zen Comments on the Mumonkan. Moon light. On our Twitter account, Buddhism Now @Buddhism_Now, most mornings we post a ‘morning meditation’ like the one above. On the net, of course, it’s morning, afternoon, evening, or nighttime…

[lunar-root]

"Zen anarchy? What could that be? Some new variations on the koans, those classic proto-dadaist Zen “riddles”? What is the Sound of One Hand making a Clenched Fist? If you see a Black Flag waving on the Flagpole, what moves? Does the flag move? Does the wind move? Does the revolutionary movement move? What is your original nature — before May ‘68, before the Spanish Revolution, before the Paris Commune? Somehow this doesn’t seem quite right. And in fact, it’s unnecessary. From the beginning, Zen was more anarchic than anarchism. We can take it on its own terms. Just so you don’t think I’m making it all up, I’ll cite some of the greatest and most highly-respected (and respectfully ridiculed) figures in the history of Zen, including Hui-Neng (638–713), the Sixth Patriarch, Lin-Chi (d. 867), the founder of the Rinzai school, Mumon (1183–1260), the Rinzai master who assembled one of the most famous collections of koans, Dogen (1200–1253), the founder of Soto, the second major school, and Hakuin (1685–1768), the great Zen master, poet and artist who revitalized Zen practice. I. Smashing States of Consciousness This is what all the great teachers show: Zen is the practice of anarchy (an-arche) in the strictest and most super-orthodox sense. It rejects all “arches” or principles — supposedly transcendent sources of truth and reality, which are really no more than fixed ideas, mental habits and prejudices that help create the illusion of dominating reality. These “principles” are not mere innocuous ideas. They are Imperialistic Principalities that intrude their sovereign power into our very minds and spirits. As anti-statist as we may try to be, our efforts will come to little if our state of mind is a mind of state. Zen helps us dispose of the clutter of authoritarian ideological garbage that automatically collects in our normal, well-adjusted mind, so that we become free to experience and appreciate the world, nature, and the “Ten Thousand Things,” the myriad beings around us, rather than just using them as fuel for our ill-fated egoistic cravings. Zen is also the strictest and most super-orthodox form of Buddhism — and at the same time the most iconoclastic, revolutionary and anarchistic one. The roots of Zen go back to the beginnings of the Buddhist tradition — not to any founding sacred documents or to any succession of infallible authorities, but to the experience that started the tradition: the anarchic mind! Forget the “ism” of Buddhism. It’s not ultimately about doctrines and beliefs. The “Buddha” that it’s named after means simply the awakened mind or somebody, anyolebody, who happens to “have” that kind of mind. And Zen (or Ch’an, in Chinese) means simply meditation, which is just allowing the mind to be free, wild, awake, and aware. It’s not about the occasional or even regular practice of certain standardized forms of activity (sitting and walking meditation, koan practice, being inscrutable, trying to look enlightened, etc.). Equating meditation with silent sitting is something that Zen simply will not stand for! Zen is also intimately linked to the absurd, but it can’t be reduced to doing and saying absurd things, as in the popular caricature of Zen. Zen is not nihilism, but is (like all Buddhism) the Middle Way between hopeless nihilism and rigid dogmatism (does a dogmatist have a Buddha-nature?)."

[zenmoonmaster-blog]

zen master mumon the gateless gate commentary

through the gate he stepped out and the bars could never hold him back again.the gate was holding him prisoner not keeping him out.

[buddhismnow]

Morning Meditation — Do not let the word 'Tao' delude you.

Morning Meditation — Do not let the word 'Tao' delude you. https://wp.me/pFy3u-8hF

‘Do not let the word ‘Tao’ delude you; Realise it is nothing else than what you do morning and night.’ Shido BunanZen Comments on the Mumonkan. Grey Trees. On our Twitter account, Buddhism Now @Buddhism_Now, most mornings we post a ‘morning meditation’ like the one above. On the net, of course, it’s morning, afternoon, evening, or nighttime 😀 somewhere. Click here to read more Morning…

[buddhismnow]

Morning Meditation — Ordinary Mind is Tao.

Morning Meditation — Ordinary Mind is Tao. https://wp.me/pFy3u-8ha

‘Ordinary Mind is Tao. Hundreds of flowers in spring, the moon in autumn.’ Zen Comments on the Mumonkan. Winter Jasmine. On our Twitter account, Buddhism Now @Buddhism_Now, most mornings we post a ‘morning meditation’ like the one above. On the net, of course, it’s morning, afternoon, evening, or nighttime 😀 somewhere. Click here to read more Morning Meditation posts. More from the…

[buddhismnow]

Morning Meditation — In one instant, as it is.

Morning Meditation — In one instant, as it is. https://wp.me/pFy3u-7EP

‘In one instant, as it is, is an infinite number of kalpas. An infinite number of kalpas are at the same time this one instant. If you see into this fact, The True Self which is seeing has been seen into.’ Zen master MumonFrom the Mumonkan Sunflower. On our Twitter account, Buddhism Now @Buddhism_Now, most mornings we post a ‘morning meditation’ like the one above. On the net, of course, it’s…

[buddhismnow]

Morning Meditation — Have you not heard.

Morning Meditation — Have you not heard. https://wp.me/pFy3u-8Yz

‘Have you not heard that what comes in through the front gate is not the family treasure.’ Zen master Mumon Orange flowers growing across the pavement. On our Twitter account, Buddhism Now @Buddhism_Now, most mornings we post a ‘morning meditation’ like the one above. On the net, of course, it’s morning, afternoon, evening, or nighttime 😀 somewhere. Click here to read more Morning Meditation…

[buddhismnow]

Morning meditation — Overcoming Selfishness.

Morning meditation — Overcoming Selfishness. https://wp.me/pFy3u-6BN

‘Emphasis is placed on overcoming selfishness — the thought that cherishes one’s own welfare while being indifferent to that of others.’ Dalai Lama Read Is there any possibility of developing more compassion? By the Dalai Lama On our Twitter account, Buddhism Now @Buddhism_Now, most mornings we post a ‘morning meditation’ like the one above. On the net, of course, it’s morning, afternoon,…