[MD] A formalised Code of Art

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Hello everyone

I have a paperback called THE ZEN GARDEN: OLD ZEN  STORIES that has the poem 
in it. It is attributed to a Chinese monk named  Bunon who lived in the 10th 
century. The poem is part of a longer zen  story.

Alan Watts discusses the poem in his  book:

http://www.shambhala.com/html/catalog/items/isbn/1-57062-940-4.cfm?selected
Text=EXCERPT_CHAPTER

I've  seen several different translations on the web. You might want to check 
out  these links  too:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3692/is_200607/ai_n16597922/pg_32

_http://www.tlc.ac.nz/newsletters/aug2_02.html_ 
(http://www.tlc.ac.nz/newsletters/aug2_02.html) 
 
Mark 15-10-06c: Hello Dan, thank you. I will check it out.
Bunon, 10thC.


>If this is a Zen poem it doesn't change the  circumstances of culture the
>Buddha was born into.

The way I  understand it the Buddha was born into a wealthy family and his 
father  purposely kept him from seeing the "real" world outside the family 
compound.  When the Buddha did discover the suffering it troubled him so 
greatly that  he left his family and the wealth that was rightfully his and 
set out  looking for answers. After many travails and dangers he finally 
realized  that there were no teachers who could answer his questions. He had 
to look  inside himself. And he awoke one day. It is a timeless story that 
transcends  culture, imo.
 
Mark 15-10-06c: The story may or may not transcend, but there are saying  
attributed to the Buddha which carefully challenge the particular cultural  
rituals of his day.
 
Dan:
"When early Western investigators first read the Buddhist texts  they too 
interpreted nirvana as some kind of suicide." (LILA, preceding  sentence)

There is no mistake here. It is a Buddhist poem, albeit a  translation. There 
is no need to repeat this in the next sentence (of the  book).
 
Mark 15-10-06c: I knew i got it into my head that it was a Buddhist poem  
from somewhere!
A Buddhist poem, but not part of the Pali canon.

>2. The MoQ  translation of the poem.
>OK so far  Dan?

Conditionally.

>A. If Lila is, 'Intellectually she's  nowhere' (Lila) then she can't kill
>intellectual patterns. And yet, the  MoQ translation is introduced at the 
>point
>where Lila's need for  ritual is being discussed.

Dan:
"It was the first time he'd ever seen her look down like that.  That's what 
was so sad to see. The thing that was most attractive about her  was that 
straight-forward, eyes-ahead look of someone who's honest to  themself, 
whatever others might think. Now that was gone. It meant she was  turning 
back to the static patterns she came from. She's sold out. The  system beat 
her. It's made a crook out of her at last." (LILA)

Note  the phrase "someone who's honest to themself, whatever others might 
think."  Lila has an honest intellectual respect for herself and that's what 
makes  her so attractive to Phaedrus. Now she is reverting to the static 
patterns  of value that she came from - static social patterns of value that 
hold Lila  in place and keep her from believing in herself. Patterns that say 
she is  intellectually nowhere. But Lila thinks for herself! At least, she  
did.
 
Mark 15-10-06c: I think you're stretching things a bit here Dan.
Lila may be Dynamic but i don't see where her intellectual patterns are  
coming from.

>B. The culture the Buddha was born in to is lacking in  intellectual  
>patterns
>- it is a culture of severe religious  rituals - so one may question why  
>the
>Buddha would  advocate, in MoQ terms, killing intellectual patterns.

That is RMP's  translation. There are many others.

>Now then, i have made a mistake,  because apparently this poem is not part  
>of
>the Pali  canon!
>For this i apologise. I've been a source of confusion and it  stinks.
>Having said that, we are still left with the poem's relationship  to  Lila.

Good of you to apologize old  chap.

>
>Dan:
>I should think
>it is up to you to  provide support. Just read LILA and  you will have my
>support. Let's  have a vote. Does Mark owe us some support  here? All in
>favor,  raise your hands...
>
>Mark 15-10-06b: I see. Kangaroo court time is  it?
>And while we're at it, those wishing to vote may like to comment on  my
>ability, or lack of, to construct a fair argument, even if it  turns  out to 
>be a
>hill of beans. dmb has reservations about  this poem's MoQ  translation and 
>has
>expressed his  willingness to lend agreement.
>Please, let's not turn this into a  shouting match.

Dan:
"I'm sorry Dan. I do not have any support to lend weight to my  thesis."
"Oh that's okay Mark. No problem at all."
(That wasn't too bad  was it?)
 
Mark 15-10-06c: Wait a moment. This is becoming daft. You stated Lila was  
your support, and later you state that RMP's translation is one among many. So  
you're accepting there are alternatives.
If you feel you have identified a definitive translation please let me  know.
If there is no definitive translation that's an end to  it.


>If the poem had been something the Buddha said, my arguments  still  stand.
>And, they apply to Lila, who lacks intellectual  patterns - she can't kill
>that which she does not have.

Dan:
In her fugue state Lila has reverted to biological and social  patterns of 
value that are comfortable to her. She's ceased to function on  an 
intellectual level.
 
Mark 15-10-06c: It is stated, '...intellectually she is nowhere.'  (Lila)

>Questions still remain regarding the MoQ translation of  the  poem.

The poem is difficult to translate and there are many  levels to the 
translations.

>Mark 15-10-06b: Am i to take it you  regard me as some sort of Platt  
>figure?
>Goodness  gracious!

I just thought you might have been partaking.
 
Mark 15-10-06c: Love, Mark