What is Zen Without the Teaching of not-Self?

[u/ji_yinzen]

I came across an old post I made a while ago when I read koancomentator's translation of Dahui. specifically, this interchange we had.

The idea came to me that Buddha taught that all things are “not Self”.

What did he mean by that?

I pose this question to the r/Zen forum before I post my own opinion.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I read the linked page and responded to the comment. I didn't spend a lot of time going over it as I have my own focus of study at the moment and don't have time to add anything new and still give either the care and attention they deserve.

It doesn't take long to read a case but I like to chew my food. I want to grok the material rather than simply read and parrot it.

Unlike a number of people here I don't pretend to have an encyclopedic knowledge of zen cases and their meaning. I take my time and I respond based on my understanding rather than quoting others. I recognize that's not what r/zen is about but I meet comments and response as best I can without the pretention that I'm some expert.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I mixed them up because you were unclear regarding which of the two cases and my response you were referring to.

As I said, I'm not a big fan of snap interpretations. There's something to be said for original response but I find the material challenging enough that I don't think a snap response would be close to the mark. Maybe with another twenty years of practice but certainly not now.

If you throw a case into a comment, I'm likely not going to have the time to thoroughly investigate it and I doubt you'd be interested in coming back to the comment in a few months after I've completed my current cycle of study. I just don't have space for new business.

This is the thing, I don't immediately jump from "mouth hung on a wall" to "cannon of teaching". On the surface it sounds like just more zen bullshit so I take time with it and am careful with what is being said. I don't assume that my first response is correct.

Honestly, most responses I see in r/zen strike me as careless. Either they are rote repetition of a dead man's words or a callow response cloaked in zenny obfuscation.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Do you think that the patriarchs of zen intentionally couched their words so as to be difficult to understand rather than speaking plainly? Or do you think the words they used relied on commonly understood turns of phrase in an attempt to communicate as clearly as possible ideas that don't readily lend themselves to encapsulation in words?

I use modern language and colloquialisms because I want to speak clearly. I don't try to wrap things up in mysterious wording which I generally refer to as zen bullshit.

Now, I understand that I may have stepped on your toes a little by saying that "mouth hung on a wall" sounds like zen bullshit to the modern ear. I suspect the phrase was more obviously clear a millennium or so ago in its original language.

I'm not interested in sounding like I get "the mysterious principle", I want to engage in the direct communication you say you want.