Quote:
Originally Posted by August
That's quite a selective memory you have there Skybird. You call me derogatory names in two languages then you accuse me of making it personal. 
Why can't you just admit that your hero was wrong in this instance |
Neither is he "my hero" (if that is not derogatory, then what could ever be...), nor are you in a position to judge him, since you simply do not know enough, or anything, about the man, what he stands for, and his historic importance. Nor do you care at all to get yourself a little education about the man - I bet you have not made one attempt to use the web to find out a bit more about him. All you know is one anecdote that is being told in Zen only for illustrating purpose to not overestimate the value of helpful tools, for tools are not the item they create nor the object they point at. Zen "hates" sticking with rites and written traditions. Its all just ballast, and misleads people.
I do not mock you for not knowing that. If you never came into contact with Zen and never heared anything about it, then you
cannot know, and so I tried to give some basic epxlanations oin the thinking behind Zen and its psychological model, and my description by far is not complete in any way - but you already complain m aboitzu "walls of texts". What I mock you for is your arrogance to judge something that you do not know, and your obvious pride you take from wanting to stay in thnat state, while nevertheless still criticising the matter nevertheless. You know, a true sceptic
knows what he is criticising. You are not knowing the matter. You are not sceptical therefore - you are partisan, prejudiced. It would have been easy to google a bit and find one of many sites giving biographic notes on the man (whose authenticity by far is not beyond doubt, btw), or a brief introduction on the thinking of Zen, and why it does what it does in the way that forms its tradition. But an August does not need to know some of that in order to know all about it nevertheless. And that is what I am laughing about.
That is no glorification of an idol that I am preaching. I am simply aware that the direct pragmatism of the figure - whether it be a historically correctly described figure or a partially invented, partially artifical figure - has had an influence and importance in the history of Chan/Zen that cannot be overestimated. The value lies in the method of teaching teachers like Hui Neng, and some others of the so-called "giants of Zen". I simply know much more on that matter than you do, in a factual, academic way, since you heared of it the first time yesterday, while I have been dealing with such teachings since the better part of my life, and have taught it to others as well. His rank compares to for example Kant'S importance for Western philosphy, or Newton's in Western science. If you talk about Chan, you cannot avoid three names, three giants: Lin Chi, Hui Neng, Huang Po - that would be like a history of poetry that does not mention Shakespeare, or Goethe.
And would anyone call Goethe a sexist barbar because he wrote
"Kaum seh' ich deine Schenkel, denk ich gleich an Enkel"...?
At stake for thze searching student is simply
everything, life and death. Nothing is important in the face of this, like nothing is important in the face of death. The story that you do not get along with, has massive educational, illustrating value -
that'S why it is being told. And that is what counts. The historic authenticity is, like with many Zen stories, "under debate".
And you get fixiated on issues over property laws. While the library belonged to the monastery.
