|
Post by zendancer on Sept 22, 2011 18:08:06 GMT -5
The sixth patriarch made a big mistake. If you had been there, how could you have made the situation perfectly clear? He could have put his sandels on his head and walked away. Zen folks who enjoy koans say that this is "scratching your arm when it is your leg that itches." Zen Masters are looking for a precise answer that deals specifically with the issue at hand. One guy said the wind moves; one guy said that the flag moves; and one guy said that the mind moves. What is the absolute here-and-now truth, beyond thought, and how can it be clearly communicated?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 22, 2011 18:19:54 GMT -5
This story is usually accompanied by the following two koans: 1. If you had been there, how could you have saved the cat? I would have said..."a good word", and then chopped the cat in half. 2. Why did Joshu place his sandals on his head before walking out? Nansen should have chopped himself in half. The cat koan is called "a compassion koan." To see the answer you have to become one-with the situation. This koan is similar to the story about the two women who came to Soloman with a baby. Each woman claimed that the baby belonged to her. In his wisdom Soloman suggested cutting the baby in half so that each woman could have half of the child. The real mother immediately told Soloman to give the baby to the other woman in order to spare the child, thereby revealing the truth to Soloman. In this case the two monks were similarly arguing about who the cat belonged to. Nansen pulled a Soloman on them by asking if either monk could "say a turning word." "A turning word" in Zen is some action or statement that will illustrate an enlightened ability to perceive the truth and respond to it accordingly. Neither monk could respond appropriately to Nansen's challenge, so he (supposedly) chopped the cat in half. In all probability he pantomined a chopping action and walked off in disgust. The koan puts us in the same situation as the two monks. What could we do or say that would cause Nansen to spare the cat?
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 22, 2011 18:45:10 GMT -5
He could have put his sandels on his head and walked away. Zen folks who enjoy koans say that this is "scratching your arm when it is your leg that itches." Zen Masters are looking for a precise answer that deals specifically with the issue at hand. One guy said the wind moves; one guy said that the flag moves; and one guy said that the mind moves. What is the absolute here-and-now truth, beyond thought, and how can it be clearly communicated? Nothing and not nothing, and not nothing and not not nothing.
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 22, 2011 18:52:52 GMT -5
The cat koan is called "a compassion koan." To see the answer you have to become one-with the situation. This koan is similar to the story about the two women who came to Soloman with a baby. Each woman claimed that the baby belonged to her. In his wisdom Soloman suggested cutting the baby in half so that each woman could have half of the child. The real mother immediately told Soloman to give the baby to the other woman in order to spare the child, thereby revealing the truth to Soloman. In this case the two monks were similarly arguing about who the cat belonged to. Nansen pulled a Soloman on them by asking if either monk could "say a turning word." "A turning word" in Zen is some action or statement that will illustrate an enlightened ability to perceive the truth and respond to it accordingly. Neither monk could respond appropriately to Nansen's challenge, so he (supposedly) chopped the cat in half. In all probability he pantomined a chopping action and walked off in disgust. The koan puts us in the same situation as the two monks. What could we do or say that would cause Nansen to spare the cat? There is no cat, no person to exibit compassion, there is no one asking a question...chop the questioner in half for asking the question...shame on him for building an illusion, chop the cat in half Becuase there is no cat....the question assumes there is a good answer, but there is only what IS.....and Nansen said, whoever can say "a good word" can save the cat....so if you are of a mind to save the no cat do exactly what he asks...say: a good word What is is what is. That is a good story about soloman and compassion and fake chopping of cats though ;D
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 22, 2011 19:06:16 GMT -5
Zen folks who enjoy koans say that this is "scratching your arm when it is your leg that itches." Zen Masters are looking for a precise answer that deals specifically with the issue at hand. One guy said the wind moves; one guy said that the flag moves; and one guy said that the mind moves. What is the absolute here-and-now truth, beyond thought, and how can it be clearly communicated? Nothing and not nothing, and not nothing and not not nothing. I only mentioned the actual koans based on the stories because several people on the forum enjoy solving koans. These are what we call "formal" koans, so they shouldn't really be discussed in public. Our discussion might ruin someone else's fun. All koans have very specific answers, and somewhere on the forum the usage of koans has been discussed. In public we usually only discuss informal koans. We do this to show people that koans have simple direct answers. An example: If you meet an enlightened woman on the path of non-duality, how can you greet her with neither words nor silence? Another example: Some people say that Jesus was a pacifist because he said to turn the other cheek. One day he walked into the temple and overturned the tables of the money changers. Was this the act of a pacifist or an activist? Koans are answered through the body and not through the mind. Most koans contain a '"mind-hook," some words that grab the intellect and trigger thinking. The object is to stay free of the mind and respond directly to the truth. The first koan presented above is one of the easiest koans to solve. The second koan is slightly harder, but still pretty easy. A formal koan, such as, "What is mu?" or "What was your original face before your mother and father were born?" is usually much harder to answer. Anyone can take a shot at the first two, and we can discuss them afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2011 19:20:48 GMT -5
projection is truly an amazing thing. like our own hidden trickster. for example my whole characterization of T needling people...hmmm........<pokes self in eye> It's actually an extremely useful tool. If one cannot see one's own unconscious activity internally, it's expressed externally in relationship to others so that it is more obvious. Of course, we abuse that tool too, but wadaya gonna do?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2011 19:34:58 GMT -5
He could have put his sandels on his head and walked away. Zen folks who enjoy koans say that this is "scratching your arm when it is your leg that itches." Zen Masters are looking for a precise answer that deals specifically with the issue at hand. One guy said the wind moves; one guy said that the flag moves; and one guy said that the mind moves. What is the absolute here-and-now truth, beyond thought, and how can it be clearly communicated? I would wave my arms.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 22, 2011 20:02:31 GMT -5
Zen folks who enjoy koans say that this is "scratching your arm when it is your leg that itches." Zen Masters are looking for a precise answer that deals specifically with the issue at hand. One guy said the wind moves; one guy said that the flag moves; and one guy said that the mind moves. What is the absolute here-and-now truth, beyond thought, and how can it be clearly communicated? I would wave my arms. That's on the right track, but I better shift to a PM so as not to ruin someone else's fun. LOL
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Sept 22, 2011 20:15:26 GMT -5
How polite! That one's driving me nuts. All of the ones you gave me this time around make me go, "wha.....?"
But I'll get them. Just you wait!
|
|
|
Post by teetown on Sept 25, 2011 11:32:48 GMT -5
ZD,
Would two different enlightened people answer the koans the same way?
|
|
|
Post by teetown on Sept 25, 2011 11:43:59 GMT -5
You cannot experience knee pain if you don't know what a knee is...heh I hope you're not suggesting pain isn't real. *whacks TRF with a bamboo stick*
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 25, 2011 12:19:52 GMT -5
You cannot experience knee pain if you don't know what a knee is...heh I hope you're not suggesting pain isn't real. *whacks TRF with a bamboo stick* Pain is simply a sensation arising in the awareness. The 'thought' that that sensation is good (if your a masochist) or bad, and there is someone experiencing pain, is what makes it 'pleasurable' or 'painful'. But It's really neither. And to understand that apparent duality, non dualistically, simply take the concepts of sensation, good/bad, pleasure/pain and draw a circle around them... Blocks teetowns bamboo stick with an Age-uke and smacks him back with a jo staff...hehe Peace
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 25, 2011 12:38:19 GMT -5
ZD, Would two different enlightened people answer the koans the same way? Probably 85% of all koans would be answered in exactly the same way. The other 15% could be answered with alternative verbal responses, but it would be recognized and understood that those responses were equivalent concerning what they pointed to. For example, let's imagine that a Zen Master was interacting with fifteen students, and ten Zen Masters were observing the interaction. Let's imagine that the ZM held up a Zen stick in one hand, and asked the students, "Is this stick and this sound (he strikes the floor loudly with the stick) the same or different?" These are some possible answers that the students might give: 1. The stick is the stick, and the sound is the sound. 2. They are the same. 3. They are different. 4. They are neither the same nor different. 5. They are both the same and different at the same time. 6. You have already made a mistake. 7. A snowman walks through fire. 8. The stick and the sound are both empty of self existence. 9. Nothing happened. 10. It is all a dream. 11. (remains silent and does not answer) 12. (turns around and walks out of the room) 13. (Pantomines hitting the ZM) 14. (Jumps up, turns around, and sits back down) 15. What you did was in the past; the truth is now. The ten ZM's watching the interaction would all know the correct answer and it would be totally obvious that not a single student understands the issue nor how to show that s/he understands the issue. Here is a second example using the same group of people: Th ZM holds up his hand, snaps his fingers in front of the students and asks, "What is this?" The students might answer like this: 1. It is a finger snap. 2. It's not a finger snap. 3. It's a Zen Master asking a question. 4. It's reality. 5. It's a dream. 6. (stands up, turns around, and sits back down in silence) 7. (holds up hand and snaps fingers in silence) 8. (covers ears with hands in silence) 9. It is the truth. 10. It is a way of getting somebody's attention. 11. It is a physical action. 12. It is nothing. 13. It is something. 14. It cannot be stated in language. 15. It cannot be imagined. The ten observing ZM's would know the answer, and they would know that only one student out of the fifteen understands the issue as well as how to answer in such a way that his/her understanding is crystal clear. Many ZM's use secondary checking questions to make sure that someone hasn't told the student the correct answer. For example, if a student has been working on the koan, "What is Mu?" and gives the ZM the correct answer, the ZM might follow up with questions ike this: 1. How old is Mu? 2. How tall is Mu? 3. What is the name of Mu's favorite restaurant? 4. What would you say to Mu at the train station? 5. What would be the last thing you would say to Mu before going to bed at night? Any hesitation on the part of a student to questions like these would show that s/he hasn't yet penetrated the koan.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 25, 2011 14:01:03 GMT -5
I think that the way someone responds to a koan is either intellectually, or physically.
What's important in either response, is the presence and what is initially observed.
There has to be light so that you can see the master.
And the 'thought' of a master must arise simultaneously or shortly after-wards.
Same with the snapping of his fingers. Sound waves are perceived initially along with the 'thought' fingers snapping.
Then more sound waves are perceived and the 'thought' of the masters voice is perceived, saying "What is this"?
At the physical perceptive level, there is nothing more to be perceived.
One can choose to stop at this point or one can choose to chase 'meaning' with intellectual 'thoughts' of a master snapping his fingers.
And the intellectual answers perceived will vary, based on levels of intellectual understanding.
And one of those 'thoughts' perceived is to draw a circle around the physical and intellectual perceptions and perceive the 'thought' of oneness.
So one doesn't actually experience oneness, but experiences the 'thought' of oneness.
Really there is no right or wrong way of perceiving the master snapping his fingers.
There's just perception, just awareness...
Peace
|
|
|
Post by teetown on Sept 25, 2011 15:37:34 GMT -5
I think I see the purpose of the koans, but not how the understanding could be adequately transmitted to another person. The really ridiculous koans seem to make chase itself around in circles until it all seems kind of meaningless. The mind machine breaks down for a bit, because no intellectual answer can be found. It's almost like I take a step back and see that it's just a bunch of concepts and definitions and relationships all swirling around in a self contained whirlpool. I haven't really come up with what feels like a concrete answer to any of the koans you talk about. But they must be pretty cleverly constructed if they can make two different people with different backgrounds and conditioning come up with the same response. I'll give the one about meeting the enlightened woman on the path a shot because it seems so obvious: Give her a hug.
|
|