see pix | facebook this

The Daily Enlightenment
 Quote: Spiritual Maturity

The immature blame others
for ‘making’ them feel bad.
The mature take responsibility
for how they make themselves feel.

- Stonepeace | Get Books

- Comment | More

 TDE Web Store Is Open
 Realisation: Is This Article Really Long Or Short?



The Heart Sutra says,
‘Form is not different from emptiness;
Emptines is not different from form.’
The Middle Path is in between.

- Stonepeace | Get Books
In a surprise test for wisdom, in one of the zenniest story I had encountered so far, a Zen master holds out a stick and yells to his disciple, ‘Long or short? What is this?’ Now, put yourself in the position of the disciple. How would you answer? Do take a few moments to contemplate, or take more time to meditate upon this, before scrolling to see the ‘model’ answer…
-
-
-
In reply, the disciple grabs the stick from him, breaks it in two, and shouts back, ‘What is this?’ Do you comprehend the rationale of this answer? Again… Do take a few moments to contemplate, or take more time to meditate upon this, before scrolling to see the ‘model’ answer…
-
-
-
Before making sense of the answer, you need to understand why the teacher asked what he did. The abrupt question was an attempt to break the disciple’s habitual thinking mind, while checking if his intuitive mind was ready for some awakening. It was a his way to ‘force’ out an answer. It is natural to be stumped by the question, like I was, till I ‘cheated’ by using my thinking mind to figure out the nature of this ‘trick’ question – that purposely limited the options to ‘long or short’. It is impossible to answer with either, but you tend to want to pick one of them – due to being habitually attached to relative values as absolute ones – which clearly clash. This is while the question could never be answered conventionally; but only in an ultimate way.

The master’s question actually did not make sense as there was nothing to compare the length of the stick with, in order to label in as relatively long(er) or short(er). It was essentially meaningless in itself. The disciple, realising this, ‘thought’ (or realised) out of the box (or beyond the stick), by demonstrating the ridiculousness of the question by literally breaking that which is being questioned, showing that he had ‘shattered’ relative fixations. He retorts with a more ridiculous question, by asking in return of what remains – e.g. whether the pieces are long or short, without saying the unbroken piece was either, as perhaps expected. Now, each piece can indeed be labelled long or short – but only in relation to each other.

This is an intriguing way of simultaneously breaking attachment to the relative by showing the ultimate senselessness of such labels, while reminding us that absolute suchness (the way thing naturally are), which is beyond labels, can manifest with meaningfulness as the relative too. The fully enlightened would not be attached to either the relative or absolute, while being able to function skilfully when needed in balanced ways, according to the Middle Path. For example, the master could, with ease, teach about the absolute in this world despite most being attached to the relative, while the disciple could, also with ease, show the relative with what represented the absolute.

Here is a related zenny riddle – ‘How do you shorten a line drawn in the sand without touching it?’ If your mind had sharpened a little by now, after having reviewed the above koan (‘public case’ expressing enlightenment), you ought to find this easier to answer. Again… Do take a few moments to contemplate, or take more time to meditate upon this, before scrolling to see the ‘model’ answer…
-
-
-
The answer is much simpler than expected, with no need for any dramatic or ‘mysterious’ Zen gesture… Just draw a longer line in the sand next to it. Again, it was a trick question. Instead of asking it to be long or short, its wording forced you to assume the line to already be ‘long’ in the first place, which is why you habitually think of erasing it as the only way to make it shorter. Yet, this clearly breaks the rule of not touching it – which is why you found yourself in quite a fix! (Was this ‘worse’ than the koan?) Something is long only when with what is shorter, and something is short only when with what is longer. Nothing has any meaning in itself. All things make sense only in relation to one another, to other things in a web of interdependence.

What are some practical applications of these truths for living a more enlightened and happier life? Beyond merely long and short, likewise, for relative and thus worldly ‘objects of envy’, such as wealth, status, looks, possessions, relationships that lead to much jealousy, strife and conflict, well, useful as these ‘objects’ might be at times, under other conditions, they might even condition suffering. They are not as ultimately substantial or fulfilling as we habitually assume them to be, being fleeting and therefore false refuges. Why trap ourselves with cyclical greedy and hateful politics of empty comparisons in terms of them? The true refuge is in the Middle Path’s immovable wisdom of the way things are, while being able to relate to all with great ease, functioning with unconditional compassion for one and all. The Buddha himself set the best example.

Now, for the last and bonus question, which is really the first… about this article – ‘Long or short? What is this?’
-
-
-

The Heart Sutra says,
‘Form is the same as emptiness;
Emptines is the same as form.’
The Middle Path is in between.

- Stonepeace | Get Books


- Shen Shi'an | Comment | More
  Read More in TDE Books | Get TDE Book 6

Share Articles: tde@thedailyenlightenment.com
 Excerpt: Upholding, Breaking & Restoring Of Precepts



Those who ‘observe’ the precepts loosely,
with some intention of possibly breaking them later
will find their misgivings correspondingly more difficult to repent.

- Stonepeace | Get Books
Once when the Buddha Shakyamuni was in the world, there were two Bhikshus [monks] cultivating in the mountains. One day, one of the Bhikshus went down the mountain to get food and left the other one sleeping. In India at that time, the Bhikshus simply wore their sashes wrapped around them; they did not wear clothing underneath. This Bhikshu had shed his robe and was sleeping nude… At that time a woman happened to come along, and seeing the Bhikshu, she was aroused and took advantage of him. Just as she was running away from the scene, the other Bhikshu returned from town and saw her in flight. Upon investigation he found out that the woman had taken advantage of the sleeping Bhikshu, and he decided to pursue her, catch her, and take her before the Buddha in protest. He took out after her, and the woman became so reckless that she slipped off the road and tumbled down the mountain to her death.

So one Bhikshu had violated the precept against sexual activity and the other had broken the precept against killing. Although the [second] Bhikshu hadn’t actually pushed her down the mountain, she wouldn’t have fallen if he hadn’t been pursuing her. ‘What a mess.’ concluded the two Bhikshus. Messy as it was, they had to go before the Buddha and describe their offenses. The Buddha referred them to the Venerable Upali. But when Venerable Upali heard the details, his verdict was that, indeed, one had violated the precept against sexual activity and the other against killing, offenses which cannot be absolved. ‘You’re both going to have to endure the hells in the future,’ he concluded. Hearing this, the two monks wept, and they went about everywhere trying to find someone who could help them.

Eventually, they found the Great Upasaka Vimalakirti, who asked why they were crying. When they had related their tale, he pronounced his judgment that they had not violated the precepts. ‘If you can be repentant,’ he said, ‘then I can certify that you didn’t break the precepts.’ ‘How can that be?’ they asked. ‘The nature of offenses is basically empty,’ replied the Upasaka. ‘You did not violate the precepts intentionally, and so it doesn’t count. It is an exception.’ Hearing this explanation by the Great Teacher Vimalakirti, the two Bhikshus were enlightened on the spot and were certified as attaining the fruition… So there are many exceptions within the prohibitive precepts. But if people always look to the exceptions, they will simply not hold the precepts. They will beg the question. So the Buddha did not speak much about this aspect.” [Master Hui Seng]

Comment | More

Thus Have I Heard: Buddhist Parables & Stories
 Links



Sam & Sara | Get #1 Bestseller

Food:
Laksa
New Green Pasture

Super Short Stories:
242: Fireworks
241: Sleep
240: Dog

Movie:
Trance Lessons

Mix:
Overzen?

Share Articles: tde@thedailyenlightenment.com

 Events & Notices
See http://thedailyenlightenment.com/category/06 for faster & latest news

ODS: 12-13/10; Chod Obstacle Clearing Puja + One Day White Tara Retreat (Oct 2013) * 施身法除障法会 + 一日白度母闭关禅修
TPBC
: 21/9-30/11:
Understanding Amituofo Via The Amitabha Sutra (12th Run)
TPBC: 16/9-11/11:
The Mindfulness Factor: How To Be Mindful Of Buddha Purely
TPBC: 17/9-19/11:
108 Zen Stories: Illustrated & Demystified (2nd Run)

More Events: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dharmanews/messages



To subscribe to the above, email thedailyenlightenment-subscribe@yahoogroups.com TDE-Weekly is a free independent Buddhist inspiration e-newsletter. You can support us by contributing news, articles, running costs and encouraging friends to join. Change (and cancellation) of emails, contributions, suggestions and queries are welcomed at tde@TheDailyEnlightenment.com. The information within the articles need not represent TDE's views.The copyrights of the articles belong to the authors.