Hi, Ma-zi,We have been old friends already. Haven't we? Before
I used an addtional machine with NT installed talking to you in
Hua-Tong. You once said something a bit negtive to the Japanese
scholar Ling-Mu-Da-Zhuo. I have read his book "the field
of Zen" or "Chan-Tian-Chan-Di" in Chinese and would
like to continue our talk regarding to Zen. Could you tell me
first where Ling-Mu is wrong?
Thanks a lot.
I have a different opinion. I also read that book 10 years ago.
I re-read some part of it two years ago.
Actually we talked 破关 in Hua-Tong. The question is whehter you
can know if he 破关， by his words only? A simliar case is, once
you mentioned you don't know how Lao-zi Nei4-Zheng4 (or Zheng4-Liang4
in Buddhism term) is.
I remember Ling-Mu mentioned his personal experience only once
in his book the field of Zen. Of course he didn't use the term
破关. Maybe you missed this story.
I don't think so. He implied that he is able to read Chinese
Zen stories. If he didn't read Chinese Zen stories, he certainly
read the Japanese translation of Chinese Zen stories. I remmebr
clearly that he mentioned Zen is the special contribution to the
Buddhism by Chinese.
I have a talk with a friend who learned a bit Zen in Taiwan.
He also knows something about Japanese Zen. From his introduction
about Japanese Zen I also know that Japanese do something ridiculous
in Zen such as making the standard answers to some Zen sroies
(Gong1-An4). However, whether Ling-Mu is so stupid is another
I think Gong-an is situation and person dependent, especially
to the personwho hasn't 过关. The basic requirment is the teacher
To the person who has 过关, he/she may learn more about the techniques
by reading Gong-An to talk to the person who has not 过关.
Do you agree with me?
I am not going to talk some mistakes in the book by Ling-Mu.
If you really want to pick bugs in his book in your mind, then
you can certainly pick numerous ones. Xiang4-You2-Xin1-Sheng1.
Whether they are bugs also depends on your mind.
Do you argree with me?
I agree with you at your first "do you agree with me".
OK. I am glad that we have finally reached the agreement on
the first paragraph. It is so difficult for us to reach this point.
My all previous posts including those in Hua-Tong actually express
the same idea. By the way, could you tell whether Meng-Zhong-Meng
guo4-guan1 by reading Meng-zhong-meng's posts only? Ordianry teacher
can't pass this test proposed by the student Meng-zhong-meng:)
这不是个好的讨论方式，梦兄：得先说明，麻子个人极不喜欢您的这句话：“Ordianry teacher can't pass
this test proposed by the student”。这不是个好的讨论方式。麻子不是老师，也没想做老师，更不想充老师，激人的方式在这没意义。有言在前，再见到这种方式，麻子就不再回您的贴子。