Talk:Koan/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Mind is moving

Case 29 of The Gateless Gate seems to me one of the best, least culture-specific koans. Is there more that should be said about it? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 04:10, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should is a funny word. Be that as it may, eternity doesn't move. But knowing this could fool a person into thinking they've penetrated it. I happen to know that I haven't. Zen isn't solipsism or philosophical idealism. Wumen (Mumon) says alternately that the mind doesn't move after all, and also that all three do move. Which goes to show that even if you know all the nuances (I don't) between mind-only and consciousness-only, like some here do (and Wumen probably did), even if you know why Zen rejected both of those...well, IMO someone'd likely hafta sit with it a long time, I mean weeks not minutes. YMMV. user:munge

Of course! But at least this koan brings one to the understanding that neither internal nor external events can truly explain what's going on. Perhaps the article should include a note to the effect that, while it isn't correct to stop with any of the explanations, it's equally incorrect to reject any of them? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 06:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you really like, just quote Wumen's comment and verse, note how they contradict each other and the main case. Then note that fortunately, neither accepting nor rejecting any of the explanations is correct. The koan does presents us with images of eternity and even idealism, maybe even an allegory (the forces of idealism contending against those of materialism? Or, more classically Buddhist, nihilism versus substantialism?), a great towering complex of meaning, but then snatches them all away, leaving one with nothing but one's doubt about the matter. Then, "Oh, I'm doubting." Then, like every koan, the thusness of sitting there inquiring into it, the ability to apprehend that thusness. The inconceivable, inexplicable, but nevertheless utterly irrefutable. There was a tower of meaning. Now it's gone. Isn't that wonderful? A pity, though.

BTW, I'm trying to stick w/Pinyin (and hope to eventually get all the Hepburn in parentheses upon first mention only) except when talking about Japanese people so hope you don't mind. We're talking about Huineng (Eno). Maybe someone can find us the Chinese characters. Also, unless proven otherwise, I think they're "ancestors", not "patriarchs". Could be wrong, but I've noted too many similar, mistaken attempts in the 20th century to make it acceptable to Westerners, pardner. I've even seen references to the "Buddhist Gospels" and the "Buddhist Church". For Pete's sake. IMO the less said about the whole legend (of unilateral succession for the first 6 generations starting w/Bodhidharma) the better. user:munge

I agree, with so many different translations it's hard to keep track of who's who. I see the Huineng article identifies him as the sixth patriarch, so using his name throughout this article would probably be best. It is, however, important to say something about the unilateral succession legend somewhere... is there an article that discusses it in detail? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 06:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't know. See The Will to Orthodoxy, Bernard Faure, and Seeing Through Zen, John McRae. user:munge 17 Nov 2004

Also, old biz, Eequor, sorry about topic drift...but I think your doubts were indeed justified back there, I see no evidence that Zhaozhou the historical human being (as distinct from the legend) ever really did truly answer "yes" to the one about the dog. It's recorded that he did in the Tsung Jung Lu but that was written hundreds of years later. I could not find a "yes" (yu) in the Record of Zhaozhou or the Transmission of the Lamp and recently came across a footnote from a scholar that said, uh-uh, not there. Wish I'd copied that down, though. user:munge

Found it. "Perhaps the yes response dates back only to Hongzhi", noted on p586 of Dogen's Extensive Record (subtitle) A Translation of the Eihei Koroku, tr. by Taigen Dan Leighton and Shohaku Okamura, Wisdom Publications, 2004; the note cites Genryu Kagamishima, two of whose works (both in Japanese) are listed in the bibliography. Hongzhi practiced in early-mid 12th century, Zhaozhou in the early to late 10th century. user:munge 08:37 UTC 21 Dec 2004

One hand clapping

While this is the most widely recognized koan and definitely should be explained first, the current description is not very approachable. G. Victor Sogen Hori's explanation also seems unsatisfying somehow. Can this be explained in a non-circular manner and without falling back on philosophical concepts? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 04:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

???? Why would we try to explain it? I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound snippy. By all means, let's explain the historical and philosophical background, insofar as we can come up with notable facts, but as for trying to explain the answer ... I don't see the point. - Nat Krause 05:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's in the interpretation of koans section, so the article would be somewhat remiss to not provide an adequate interpretation. There must be some way to explain it without adding complexity. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 06:30, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not following why you believe that there must be some way to explain it without adding complexity. Why do we have an interpretation of koans section? - Nat Krause 07:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I mean, it's not much of an explanation if we make the problem harder for the reader. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 07:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

munge here, hitting edit conflicts repeatedly. Eequor, Hori's explanation is entirely consistent with others I've encountered and seemed the best of breed. It's supposed to be nonlinear. What you call circular is rather orthodox, I'm afraid. No clear distinction betweeh self and other, no clear boundary where you end and where the universe begins. I mean, even Whitehead said that. The more controversial point has to do with Hori's forcing himself to concentrate on it repeatedly. I think that not every teacher agrees with that. (Teachers often disagree with every imaginable thing a student says.) I imagine you could trace the roots of the imagery of the single hand...the legend of Hui-ko cutting off his hand and presenting it to Bodhidharma--or was it marauding theives who did it, as reported in another text?...the story of the monastery that burned, taking the priceless library of sutras with it, the abbott repeatedly holding up a single hand when asked "where is the Diamond Sutra?" and "Where is the translation of such-and-such?"...did the Chinese have the idiom, as we do, "on the one hand...on the other..."? There are so many directions of inquiry that I suspect one could exhaust oneself. I mean, Heine spent what, like 300 pages on the fox koan. munge

*nod*

The layers added by Hori may be why his explanation doesn't seem quite enough.

I hadn't heard of the legend in which Hui-ko's hand was cut off by thieves. The only version I recall has him so distraught that he might not seem dedicated enough, that he cuts off his own hand (or arm) to prove that he is dedicated. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 07:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

AFAIK, Japanese written commentaries on "one hand", if they exist, weren't translated into English. Probably a good thing. (Not counting Yoel Hoffman, but that's not necessarily authoritative, the thing he's translating being very questionable.) BTW, it being a koan from what, the 17th century (again, AFAIK) that means that maybe 600, maybe 800 years worth of people diligently practiced with koans, left us 99% of the texts of the koan tradition, and never, ever heard of some koan about the "sound of one hand". munge

It does seem more direct than Zhaozhou's Dog, at least; though as can be seen from Hoffman, there are all sorts of traps one might fall into. I'm not altogether convinced that the monk in Hoffman's example hasn't landed in a different trap anyway, but at least that's a good start. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 07:35, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your helping make the page better. You'd really have to stare into the problem for a long while, I think. Again, the nonlinearity is strictly orthodox. But may I point out, as was recently pointed out to me, that when the Emperor asked Bodhidharma "who is it who stands before me?", Bodhidharma said "Don't know". He most assuredly did not say "There is no I". munge

-Naif 06:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Gifts

Incidentally, would it be agreed that the last koan needs no further explanation? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 07:39, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't even know if the last thing is so much a koan as it is a story that someone cherished. There is a famous koan about a teacher who tells a student to stoke the fire, and the student can't find anything to stoke, and the teacher finds a live coal in there...I forget the details. Blue Cliff Record, I suppose. munge 17 Nov 2004

Oh yeah, now I remember why I didn't delete it in the revision. Assuming the story's true, it presumably was a koan for the monk who experienced it. And the story tells a process of coming up with a response, which illustrates what students and monks undergo when they practice with koans. I was tempted to delete it, though. Because I don't know if it's a koan or just a parable. Not being a Zen priest, I can't tell just by looking. If it is a koan, it's associated with one or more actual Zen priests. Who? user:munge 18 Novemver 2004

I'm sure there's something hidden in it, but I can't quite place it. It's probably safe to assume that if we can't easily say it isn't a koan, then it most likely is. =)

If nothing else, it's a nice way of making the point that one isn't expected to quickly understand a koan (to tie in to the stuff below). ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 06:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)