New Zen Place

Yesterday, i visited the sambokyodan zen place of Vivien Boey and Boey Wa Keong which i always wanted to go. I sat with them for an hour out of the 2 hrs that the meditation is supposed to last. Apparently they r quite active, it's in the apartment of the teachers' whr an area is designated as a zendo. They r having sittings every wed nights n alternate sunday mornings. The style n rules r similar to Kwan Yin Chan Lin's (kycl) korean style of Zen Master Seung Sahn whr i practised; sitting facing the wall, bowing in front of the cushions etc, doing 25 min meditation n 5 min walking. Slightly shorter than the 40 min plus 5 min of ZM SS. They hv teisho, dhamma talks on koans every last wed of the month n also hv interviews, called dokusan, like kycl. They have sesshins, 7 day retreats, also in the apartment, in every april n sept whr kubota roshi, the current head of the order comes down to lead. Both the teachers are sanctioned to teach by the order. Looking forward to gg there more often to clarify the great matter!

New sights

Ohh working people on trains, wearing jackets n shirts, once familiar...

Some stuff on koans

It is always interesting to hear what people think about zen. While many a times, zen seems to be centering on words and mysterious riddles called koans; in actual fact, zen is not only abt words but actions. It is not only about what we say but what we do and how we do it. In short, how we respond to the situation that is presented in front of us.

One zen master once said that 'opening one's mouth is a big mistake', because zen believes in the liberation from concepts and words only introduces more concepts which leads one away from Truth. Yet, in zen there is also another saying, 'but words are necessary' as without words there is no way to lead people into the practice.

However, zen ultimately values only experience. The heartfelt experience of the emptiness of forms, impermenance, non self and suffering is zen's real aim. This experiences irreversibly changes one's psyche and thus one's response to situations.

Koans, many a times, present situations. Situations that simulate real life situations. A person who has a deep experience responds differently to a situation from a normal person and that is how the answer to a koan is judged to be correct or wrong. It is not a perfect method though and answers can actually be memorised or deduced. However to a good zen master, a keen eyed one, if he suspects that the student merely memorised the answers or copied them from someone, the zen master may ask for an alternative answer or present a koan of a similar situation and press the student for a response. If the student has a clear experience, it would not be difficult to answer in a different way or to another similar koan. If to the first koan, the student merely deduced the answer without the necessary experience, or only has a weak experience, he would be slow in answering other similar koans. If it is found that the person has a weak expeirence or is able to deduce the answers, the zen masters usually present more koans to the student to 'polish' the student's view. I should add a disclaimer here that it is not the case where a student who has passed all the koans would be able to respond to all situations in his life correctly and are 'enlightened' with the Right View. This is because koans are only simulations of situations and are ultimately not the real situations. Thus the real test still lies in facing the situations in one's daily lives. In short, zen masters are not perfect, they are just people who have a clearer view of how things really are compared to regular people. The 'enlightenment' that students in zen stories experience are usually not that of attaining the Right View, but just glimpses of the Right View. We too get these at times, an Aha! moment.

A common misconception people have about koans is that they are word questions, riddles, which are in turn to be answered by word answers. In actual fact, zen adopts the principle: actions speak louder than words. Words are not enough, you have to do something about the situation at hand, not just talk. That's why you sometimes hear zen masters saying things like if you open your mouth, he will hit you 30 times, if you do not say anything, he will also hit you 30 times. He is in fact pushing you to act, do something about the situation (koan) not just talk or not do anything (sometimes not doing anything might also be the answer though). You might say zen koan training sometimes also teaches you how to deal with situations.

Lastly, if koans still sound like a mystery, as a final attempt to demystify koans, i would like to end off by saying that many of the answers to the initial first level koans are about the present situation. These koans point to the present, current situation, what is happening now, what is in front of you, what are you feeling, what is this current sensation, asking one to be mindful of the present situation, what is happening now, rather than the past or future.

Hope this helps! :)

Holiday ends

Holiday ends n i am back to work. How i wish i could sleep a little longer. There is this resistance to go back to work. Acty it is not so much of gg bdck to work but gg back to work plus all the extra activities i have like classes etc, the whole barrage of stuff. It's like retreating from samsara n returning to samsara. Ict is so simple you at least know yourself. Samsara is so fast it just blows you along with it regardless of what you want.

ICT

ICT shows one's true colours. Its is the school of army which provides one with the space to learn about oneself and to reflect. The holiday has ended n one returns to the daily life.
I've been feeling that i have to do something. I have to get deeper down, to completely uproot, completely eradicate, to thoroughly understand, to raise the space to a whole new level.

Understanding and giving

By watching 2 people I learnt a lesson. One day, Tom and Jerry had a quarel. Tom says he gave Jerry all his cheese and the thing that got him most pissed off is that Jerry is un-appreciative. However, if you ask Jerry, Jerry would complain that Tom is a stingy and selfish fool who keeps hoarding the cheese. So the question is who is right?

The answer is both are right. Why? Let's see.

The true story is that when Jerry asked Tom to give him his cheese, he had a difficult time asking from him. He had to use all sorts of ways to beg and pray and plead with Tom and Tom would not budge an inch. As such, Jerry used a lot of effort and a lot of hardwork to get the cheese from Tom. Until finally, Tom gave Jerry the cheese. After getting the cheese, Jerry once left it unguarded and it was stolen by Mike. Tom thus got very sad and kept nagging at Jerry every other day for the loss of the cheese. And in between this nagging, kept asking Jerry to pay him back the cheese. In the end, Jerry couldn't stand Tom and left him. Tom was left wondering why Jerry left him.

Analysing from Tom's perspective: Tom did give the cheese to Jerry. It is a fact, a truth. Tom was technically right to say that he gave Jerry the cheese. And so Tom does not understand why Jerry says that he is selfish and stingy. Losing the cheese to the careless actions of Jerry, naturally Tom would feel sad as he went through a reat deal of effort and difficulty to gather that amount of cheese.


Analysing from Jerry's perspective: Jerry feels that he went through a lot of suffering trying to get the cheese from Tom and that since they are such good friends, the best in the world, they should help each other out naturally. Why is Tom so reluctant to let go of the cheese? Why does Tom make it so hard for Jerry to get the cheese? After all, each of them worked hard to gather their cheese and it is all for their shared survival. So why is Tom so reluctant. After all, after getting Tom's cheese, Jerry was going to use it to exchange for more and better cheese from his friends.
Furthermore, Jerry did not purposely leave the cheese out in the open for others to steal, he ensured no one was around the area before leaving it there and he felt he was unluckily that the cheese got stolen.


If you ask Tom what he wants, Tom says he feels that his contribution was neglected and taken for granted. He just wants to Jerry to show some form of appreciation and regret for his lack of foresight and losing the cheese that Tom spent so much effort collecting. Tom just wants to hear 'thanks' and 'sorry'.

If you ask Jerry, Jerry feels that he shouldn't be blamed, he had good intentions in mind and it was just his luck. He at the same time is also deeply saddened and disappointed with the loss of the cheese in his hands. He feels that Tom shouldn't blame him for the loss. And Tom as his good friend should comfort him. Thus whenever Tom talks about this issue and mentions the cheese, Jerry gets very upset. Moreover, Tom says he gave the cheese to Jerry, but Jerry feels he earned it from Tom through much hard persuasion. And is quite saddened by Tom's attitude after their many years of friendship.


Well, that is the story of Tom and Jerry and the cheese. What can you draw from the story? Well for me, I learnt that when you say you give something, give willingly and do not take that to be yours again after it has changed hands. I learnt that appreciation is important and to apologise is important.

To always hear from the other party. What happens, the facts are not the truth. The truth to a person is his perception of things. To Tom, his giving the cheese is the truth. To Jerry, he struggled to get the cheese is the truth. So what is the truth? Can we say who is right and wrong? From the facts, both are right.

To always put down your ego and help each other out. To always say explicitly what you want from the other party. Tom never told Jerry what he wanted. And even if he did, Jerry never heard. Vice-versa, Jerry never told Tom what he wanted from him and Tom would not have heard too, being too concerned with his own well-being and damaged heart through the loss. So to end in the 2 good friends parting ways, is it really very hard to fanthom why? It just takes some listening, some true giving and some understanding.

Most importantly I feel, it takes putting down a person's I, My, Me. The person's big ego. The ego was the thing clouding their judgements. That's why in the end, I always turn to the Buddhist teachings which teach the method to take away one's ego from the equation and have a more harmonious, understanding world, and to have less sufferings. I believe, this is the way to living a better, happier and more fulfilling life for oneself and those around oneself.

Chan Master Xitang Zhizang (西堂智藏禅师)

【西堂智藏禅师】
　　虔州西堂智藏禅师，虔化廖氏子。八岁从师，二十五具戒。有相者睹其殊表，谓之曰：「骨气非凡，当为法王之辅佐也。」师遂参礼大寂，与百丈海禅师同为入室，皆承印记。
　　一日，大寂遣师诣长安，奉书于忠国师。国师问曰：「汝师说甚么法？」师从东过西而立。国师曰：「秖这个更别有？」师却从西过东边立。国师曰：「这个是马师底，仁者作么生？」师曰：「早个呈似和尚了也。」寻又送书上径山，﹝语在国一章。﹞属连帅路嗣恭延请大寂居府，应期盛化。师回郡，得大寂付授衲袈裟，令学者亲近。僧问：「马祖离四句、绝百非，请师直指西来意。」祖曰：「我今日劳倦，不能为汝说，得问取智藏。」其僧乃来问师。师曰：「汝何不问和尚？」僧曰：「和尚令某甲来问上座。」师曰：「我今日头痛，不能为汝说，得问取海兄去。」僧又去问海。﹝百丈和尚。﹞海曰：「我到这里却不会。僧乃举似马祖。祖曰：「藏头白，海头黑。」马祖一日问师曰：「子何不看经？」师曰：「经岂异邪？」祖曰：「然。虽如此，汝向后为人也须得。」曰：「智藏病思自养，敢言为人。」祖曰：「子末年必兴于世。」师便礼拜。马祖灭后，师唐贞元七年，众请开堂。李尚书尝问僧：「马大师有甚么言教？」僧曰：「大师或说即心即佛，或说非心非佛。」李曰：「总过这边。」李却问师：「马大师有甚么言教？」师呼李翱！李应诺。师曰：「鼓角动也。」师普请次，曰：「因果历然，争柰何！争柰何！」时有僧出，以手托地。师曰：「作甚么？」曰：「相救！相救！」师曰：「大众！这个师僧犹较些子。」僧拂袖便走。师曰：「师子身中虫，自食师子肉。」僧问：「有问有答，宾主历然。无问无答时如何？」师曰：「怕烂却那！」﹝后有僧举问长庆，庆云：「相逢尽道休官去，林中何曾见一人？」制空禅师谓师曰：「日出太早生。」师曰：「正是时。」师住西堂，后有一俗士问：「有天堂地狱否？」师曰：「有。」曰：「有佛法僧宝否？」师曰：「有。」更有多问，尽答言。有曰：「和尚恁么道莫错否？」师曰：「汝曾见尊宿来邪？」曰：「某甲曾参径山和尚来。」师曰：「径山向汝作么生道？」曰：「他道一切总无。」师曰：「汝有妻否？」曰：「有。」师曰：「径山和尚有妻否？」曰：「无。」师曰：「径山和尚道无即得。」俗士礼谢而去。师元和九年四月八日归寂。宪宗谥大宣教禅师。穆宗重谥大觉禅师。

[五灯会元 - 宋·普济]

I did a rough translation of the highlighted part:

When the Master was living at Xitang, there was a layman who asked him, "Is there Heaven and Hell?"

The Master replied, "Yes."

Next the layman continued to ask,"Is there the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha?"

To this, the Master answered,"Yes"

To other such questions, the Master answered similarly.

Then the layman asked,"Why does the Master answer in this way? Isn't there something wrong?"

The Master asked the layman,"Have you met up with any venerable masters before coming here?"

The layman answered,"Yes, I questioned Master Jingshan before coming here."

Master,"And what did he say?"

Layman,"He answered no to everything."

Master,"Do you have a wife?"

Layman,"Yes."

Master,"Does the Master Jingshan have a wife?"

Layman,"No."

Master,"That's why it is all right for Master Jingshan to answer no."

The layman bowed to express his gratitude and left.

How true this is. Knowing when you are a monk then be a monk, when you are a lay person then be a layperson! The Dharma of a lay person and a monk is different.