I was reading that the Zen monk Hakuin suffered a debilitating condition called zen sickness before his enlightenment. This seem to be a direct result of his practice. Does anyone know what this was? Has there been a retrospective medical diagnosis of this? Are there equivalent stages of the path in other traditions? Should I be worried? Thanks

As I understand it, “bare awareness” is a meditation technique whereby anything that arises is noticed without judgement and allowed to pass without interaction by the meditator. Shikan Tasa means “just sitting” and is employed in Soto Zen. I’m not sure what the difference between the two techniques is.

I'm interested to know the academic consensus on Cleary's translation of The Blue Cliff Record. I've heard that his translations could be spotty at times, given that, how accurately has he depicted this text? To clarify: I want to know how closely Cleary's translation adheres to the original Blue Cliff Record, not how the Buddhist community regards it in terms of Buddhist practice.

I read this: > In Zen, it's generally understood that "When you meet the Buddha, kill > him" refers to "killing" a Buddha you perceive as separate from > yourself because such a Buddha is an illusion." Should we kill illusions of Buddha? I do wonder, in the time of Buddha, some people wanted to kill him — perhaps this too is a reason I ask, although that may have been for many reasons.

On researching Zen Buddhist literature I'm seeing a gap after Dogen's Shobogenzo in the 13th century, and before Hakuin's Commentary in the 17th century. Was there any notable Zen writing produced during this period? What was happening in Zen history during this time?

> Nirvana is not extinction because mind (which, from the first, was the > only authentic component of the vanished beings) persists; it is not > heaven because no sentient being remains to enter it Can you explain it so that I'm sure it is right? In other words, expand on it, or append it, etc. You may use concepts like "one mind", "mindful", etc,, whatever you like.

Is the samadhi nagi or also called Mushin a state were the mind gets blank and you expirience actions while your mind is blank or unconsciousness? From Suzukis book description your mind gets a known from the non-mind what during that time happend.

One of the "101 Zen stories": > [My Heart Burns Like > Fire](https://gist.github.com/dustin/798227#my-heart-burns-like-fire) > > Soyen Shaku, the first Zen teacher to come to America, said: “My heart > burns like fire but my eyes are as cold as dead ashes.” He made the > following rules which he practiced every day of his life. > > In the morning before dressing, light incense and meditate. > > Retire at a regular hour. Partake of food at regular intervals. Eat > with moderation and never to the point of satisfaction. > > Receive a guest with the same attitude you have when alone. When > alone, maintain the same attitude you have in receiving guests. > > Watch what you say, and whatever you say, practice it. > > When an opportunity comes do not let it pass you by, yet always think > twice before acting. > > Do not regret the past. Look to the future. > > Have the fearless attitude of a hero and the loving heart of a child. > > Upon retiring, sleep as if you had entered your last sleep. Upon > awakening, leave your bed behind you instantly as if you had cast away > a pair of old shoes. What does "heart burn like fire" mean in this context? I assume that "eyes are cold" means they're not acquisitive -- i.e. he doesn't desire everything he sees -- I say that based on this poem from Kipling which prefaces his story of _The King's Ankus_ > These are the Four that are nver content, that have never been filled since the Dews began-- > Jackal's mouth, and the glut of the Kite, and the hands of the Ape, and the Eyes of Man. I can only guess at what "heart burns like fire" means -- I don't know what a good answer might be -- maybe a reference to commentary on the story, or to a similar metaphor in the Zen tradition. FYI I'm posting this further to the problem described in this OP -- https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/q/51867/254 -- the problem there seems to be that "eyes being cold" (i.e. seeing people in a certain way) results in feeling "cold-hearted" -- and so this story came to mind but I'm unsure whether I understand this story well enough.

Slavoj Zizek is a little unusual I think among English-speaking philisophers, in expressing substantial sympathy for Buddhist ideas, but challenging them at a basic level. Eg The Problems of Buddhism (https://youtu.be/UN1hP_lBtp0) The Buddhist Ethic & The Spirit of Global Capitalism (https://youtu.be/qkTUQYxEUjs) Zizek criticising Buddhism (https://youtu.be/IlCkLqz20W8) Zizek vs Buddhism (https://www.youtube.com/live/9zqm7ZCP9t0) To summarise, he focuses on Zen At War, and especially Suzuki, using an understanding of Sunyata to better be able to go to war. A key phrase he uses is Kurosawa's interpretation of Shakespeare: (only) "The bad sleep well". That is, inner peace at the expense of acting morally, can lead to a situation like in Japan where only a handful of Zen figures opposed imperialist violence, an unsettled mind is sometimes appropriate over non-stop inner peace come-what-may. He also criticises mindfulness practices used in workplaces to allow workers to tolerate intolerable conditions. How should we answer this? Have people already in the Buddhist world responded? I feel like the answer relates to emptiness not being no selves at all, but rather intersubjectivity: to do violence to others is to do violence to our other self. Is that a mainstream response in Buddhism, and especially in Zen?

In the question *"A question regarding the level of worldly participation for a buddhist monk"* , Bhante gave an answer containing a Zen quote. The quote is; >"Before Enlightenment chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment chop wood, carry water". - What is the origin of the quote? - What is the meaning of the quote? Thank you for your time.

Does wisdom only exist, in zen, when it is perfect? Do zen monks and laity practice wisdom or is the focus so much on one practice samadhi that it's only there when you are?

A few months ago I bought a four volume set of The Shobogenzo, translated by by Gudo Nishijima and Chodo Cross. In this set there was not only a translation of the Shobogenzo, but an interpretation of each chapter of the text in modern language. I found these interpretations extremely helpful in actually understanding the text, as a lot of the original language was quite obscure. Recently, I also picked up The Blue Cliff Record, translated by Thomas Cleary. However, in his text there are no direct interpretations of the chapters, and so I'm having trouble understanding some of them. I largely understand Zen itself, but the original language of The Blue Cliff Record often just doesn't seem to get to the point, or make that point clear. **So I'm wondering if any modern, English interpretations of The Blue Cliff Record exist?**

It is confusing to me that what what the goal of zazen is (and is not), as proposed by various people with more or less authority on the subject, varies so greatly. Some say no goal, and others identify various goals. Rationally speaking, no goal makes sense. It is a form of non-dualism. If there is a goal, then there is an attachment to becoming something which one is not. But no goal is also nonsense. If there is no goal, then there is no goal to end suffering. The Four Noble Truths become descriptive, and the Eightfold Path is unimportant. This is as far as my thinking has gotten. I conclude with some verifiable examples of what the goal of zazen is said to be. **remove wrong perceptions** > the practice of meditation, the practice of looking deeply, has the purpose of removing wrong perceptions from us
—[“What is Nirvana and How Does It End Suffering?” by Thích Nhất Hạnh at *MeditationPlex*](http://www.meditationplex.com/zen-meditation/thich-nhat-hanh-nirvana-suffering/#sthash.ymYgRbuO.dpuf) **see ourselves** > Zazen deliberately tries to remove all entertainment and distractions from our minds so we can see ourselves as we really are
—[The Laughing Teabowl Sangha](https://sites.google.com/a/wildblue.net/laughingteabowl/Home/zazen) **there is no goal** > There is no starting point nor goal, nothing to attain
–[*Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind* by Shunryu Suzuki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_Mind,_Beginner 's_Mind) **grasp enlightenment** > the only way to grasp enlightenment is through a calm and settled mind
—[Zen Guide](http://www.zenguide.com/practice/zazen_guide.pdf) **engage with reality (not to make your life better)** > The real practice of Zen is to engage directly with reality, not to use it as a method to improve your health or make your life better
—[“Zazen Posture” by Josho Pat Phelan at *Chapel Hill Zen Center*](http://www.chzc.org/posture.htm) **not to learn** > Don’t think of practice in terms of “eventually”
—[“Zazen is not step-by-step learning meditation” by Harada Sekkei Roshi at *Buddhism Now*](http://buddhismnow.com/2014/02/19/zazen-not-step-by-step-harada-roshi/) **compassion** > the purpose of zazen is compassion
—[“Beyond Thinking: Dogen’s Teachings on Zazen” by Norman Fischer at *Upaya Zen Center*](http://www.upaya.org/2013/10/norman-fischer-10-05-2013-beyond-thinking-dogens-teachings-on-zazen-part-4/)

Gudo Wafu Nishijima (incidentally Brad Warner's teacher) the soto monk, claimed that sentient beings in pain are just in hell, and hell is a supposition. I take this to mean that pain occurs without rebirth, already in this life, andt hat we cannot know that we will suffer pain after death: so I'd conclude that rebirth that isn't painful. What I think I'm adding to his exact words is just that facts like suffering are all or nothing, nothing real is incomplete. That may seem crazy, but I like it. I'm highly skeptical that we need to experiecne more pain to experience the dharma. Even if sentient beings do (and do not!) experience the result of their evil acts. Is there any basis in the sutras? Not to my conclusion, but his claims about pain. I've read that zen teachers are often ambivalent on their students belief in rebirth, but I mean something more than that, that to experience the result of bad karma is either in this life or not what we usually mean by "painful".

A very famous, so famous it may be apocryphal, zen quote says: > Before Enlightenment chop wood carry water, after Enlightenment, chop > wood carry water. What does this mean? Specifically, is the discourse saying that time without effort is wasted time?

I've been looking around online for an answer to this question, but have come up empty handed. My understanding of *The Blue Cliff Record* is that it's a collection of famous cases compiled from the history of Zen. But what I'm wondering is how *The Mumonkan* differs from it? (I haven't read this one yet). Is there any overlap in the cases? And what was the purpose of having two different collections of Koans? Is it an entirely new collection? If so, what is the difference in the history of their respective collections?

I'd heard about Heinrich Dumoulin's two volume History of Zen a number of times, but Dumoulin not being a Buddhist himself led me to avoid it. However, I ran into the set at a library recently, and to my surprise it's actually reading pretty well, and appears to be somewhat objective / extensive. What I'm curious about is the good and bad of the book. What did he get right, and what did he get wrong about Zen's history? Essentially a short critical analysis of this book and where / where I shouldn't be skeptical. If there are too many factual errors in the book to list them all, then calling this out and a few small examples should suffice.

I'm a Zen practicant and, as you may know, we recite the Heart Sutra of the Perfect Wisdom a lot. I really like this sutra, it is very meaningful. However something I never understood is: why is the Boddhisattva Avalokiteśvara present in the sutra? The sutra teaches about vacuity and originated dependence etc. And, as far as I am concerned, Avalokiteśvara is usually associated more with compassion. So why is *he* specifically in this sutra?

I have struggled with serious chronic asthma all my life. I started meditating and in general felt very relaxed. However a few years into the practice my asthma became very serious. One night I fell asleep and dreamt of crawling under a rock and falling asleep forever. I said to myself (in my dream), 'no, I must carry on'. I then woke up only to find myself hardly breathing. I think I almost died that night. I want to keep meditating and dedicate myself to 'the way'. I feel great happiness and peace this way. I also don't want to be so at peace as to lose my life. I have allowed myself a level of anxiety ever since and wake up at night regularly which is important in order to take medications when I need it however I feel the anxiety of course means I'm no longer at peace. I have also tried to increase medication and move to a better environment but my health has not improved. What is the buddhist way in this situation? Possibly another way of phrasing this question is how much should I struggle to stay alive. I'm not scared by death but also I don't want to die. I'm happy to hear perspectives from different practices and lineages.

I've heard Zen Buddhism characterised by the notion of 'Everyone is already enlightened'. Is that correct? - does Zen Buddhism actually say that and if so can someone give a reference to a text where it actually says that or something like it. Many thanks as always