Tang-Fan, This ID Accepts Your Challenge: "Miss Chan, in the Spirit of Reciprocity, I Challenge You!"
2006/8/17 12:29:01
This Tang-Fan is somewhat interesting. He had no answer to this ID's "Tang-Fan, Your Explanation of Marx's Labor Theory of Value Has Serious Problems," yet he wrote "Miss Chan, in the Spirit of Reciprocity, I Challenge You!" to challenge this ID. This ID thinks this kind of thing is too childish. If you, Tang-Fan, feel you didn't explain Marx's labor theory of value thoroughly enough, then just admit your mistake. Why go looking for trouble as a way to save face? Isn't that a bit too boring?
You could have just gone home to hide for a month or two and come back — like last time when this ID told someone to go study probability theory. When they came back, this ID didn't press the matter either. Why go through all this unnecessary trouble? Of course, you, Tang-Fan, also used the pretext of answering questions from "Not-a-Netizen," thinking this would save face. Yet you only said that if this ID couldn't match your rhyme scheme, then this ID loses — but what about the most important point: if this ID's rhyme-matching poem is better than yours, what then? Setting challenge conditions that only favor yourself — is that the manly behavior you claim for yourself?
This ID's feminist manifesto can be looked up anytime; it's been featured on the front page of several major sites. This ID has no need to repeat it to you. The reason I'm playing this childish game with you this time is not for feminism, but for three reasons only:
- Because this involves Buddhist dharma, and Buddhist dharma is the most important element of Chinese culture, so it must be addressed.
- Your poem is passable, and most importantly, your rhyme scheme uses entering-tone rhymes. Nowadays, few people can even distinguish entering tones correctly, yet every one of your rhymes is correct — proof that you're not entirely unlettered.
- This ID happens to be in a good mood today.
Since this Tang-Fan later posted a correction in his own thread: "'Tree-wood dense or sparse, cicada tones hard to lodge' should be 'Leaves dense or sparse, cicada tones hard to lodge.' Miss Chan, look carefully (Tang-Fan: 2006-08-16 15:48:08)," his poem now reads:
Summer heat — has it ever been cruel? It's only people who go mad.
Water and fire — their natures illusory — fish and shrimp plunge into the cauldron themselves.
All things' forms between emptiness and being — round or square, what binds them?
Glass and clay are one body — constantly reflecting each other's glow.
People are blind not because of their eyes — it has nothing to do with the strength of light.
Leaves dense or sparse — cicada tones hard to lodge.
Dust-thoughts chase the wheels — how can contours be preserved?
Prosperity flourishes then decays — joy and love have always been thin.
In the great furnace between heaven and earth — birth and death, who can seize them?
Departing thoughts ride the wind — passing beyond every mountain and ravine.
No self, no "no-self" — if you don't understand, don't force an interpretation.
In the realm of poetry, this ID will accept any challenge, but first you must write the challenge piece properly — don't make laughable mistakes with meter and rhyme. Aside from getting the rhyme correct with no straying, Tang-Fan's poem has nothing particularly remarkable. But since Tang-Fan was able to write it and keep the rhymes straight, this ID won't say more. Please see this ID's rhyme-matching poem:
How pitiful, these web-trapped wanderers — cycling through their own confusion.
The four elements — who dwells therein? Heaven and earth — who falls into the cauldron?
Form and spirit, emptiness and being — what binds? What is there to bind?
Dependent arising is not a single body — like illusion, mutually illuminating.
Confusion begins with the perception of things — worry arises in tender years.
The five skandhas falsely form consciousness — vessels and instruments can never truly lodge it.
Dust-thoughts chase conditions — the three realms stretch vast and lonely.
Habitual karma dissolves along the way — do not let the field of merit grow thin.
The blind turtle crosses the bitter sea — when can it find the hole in the floating log?
Fleeting glory, a dream in the mirror — in the blink of an eye, the boat is already in the ravine.
The poor man's robe — where is it? The bright pearl is truly there, unmistakable.
Tang-Fan, whether this ID's poem surpasses yours in both insight and prosody — judge for yourself with a clear conscience. As they say, "Literary works are affairs of a thousand ages; gains and losses are known in one's own heart." Since you're not entirely unlettered, just speak honestly. Whether you admit your error or not is actually not the point. If you realize there's still room for improvement, go home and study hard. Don't waste your life idling around online!
Replies
Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán 2006/8/17 22:34:42
[Anonymous] Momo
2006-08-17 22:13:16
Can someone explain — how come the Master's poem is an old piece??? How does the Master's old piece happen to match Tang-Fan's rhyme scheme??? Is there really such a coincidence in the world???
======
This Tang-Fan has been making trouble recently. He must have seen that I had this poem on Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán, secretly matched its rhymes to challenge this ID. This ID didn't expose him, but turned it around, letting him eat bitter melon in silence!
Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán 2006/8/17 22:43:21
I welcome more people like Tang-Fan who, while openly defending this ID, secretly look for opportunities to tear this ID down. But this ID doesn't mind. Coming straight to the door to challenge is absolutely fine. No posts are deleted here, no one is driven away — come and go freely!
Chán Zhōng Shuō Chán 2006/8/17 22:31:50
Tang-Fan, your problem is too much Chan, too much Buddha. "Principle without obstruction, phenomena without obstruction, principle and phenomena without obstruction, phenomenon and phenomenon without obstruction" — all return to One Mind. The so-called "this very mind is Buddha." To seek "principle without obstruction, phenomena without obstruction, principle-and-phenomena without obstruction, phenomenon-and-phenomenon without obstruction" outside the mind is no different from climbing a tree to catch fish!
To treat phenomena as phenomena, yet not knowing that there is no phenomenon that is not phenomenon, no principle that is not phenomenon — principle is unobstructed by phenomena. He who speaks of principle: the mind. He who conditions phenomena: the mind. Principle and phenomena do not go beyond One Mind. To forcibly split principle from phenomena within One Mind is the foolish act of putting a head on top of one's head.
Step onto the summit and walk upward — neither principle nor phenomena, neither mind nor Buddha. Principle, phenomena, mind, Buddha — all are merely the strange transformations of your own mind! You see too much principle in my poem because your mind clings to principle and makes it principle. Your discrimination — what has it to do with me? For this ID, to speak of principle or phenomena is already putting a head on top of one's head; to speak of mind or Buddha is looking for one's head after cutting it off. Like this — adding doesn't increase, subtracting doesn't decrease, let you add and subtract as you will. Those who add and subtract by adding and subtracting are certainly fools; but are those who negate adding and subtracting through adding and subtracting any wiser?
Neither foolish nor wise — foolish and wise both collapse; the collapse itself collapses — nothing remains that doesn't collapse!