Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Looking at the History of Kōan
Sile
Veteran
From The Kōan: Texts and Contexts in Zen Buddhism (Heine/Wright):
The Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, together with the Lotus Sutra, widely disseminated several forms of religious language that came to serve as the practical background for the development of the kōan.
We focus here on three of them: (1) dharani or sacred formulas, including mantra, practiced in esoteric Buddhism; (2) devotional recitation of the thought or name of the Buddha, the nien-fo used in the Pure Land School (J. nembutsu); and (3) the visualizations and conceptual "contemplations" (kuan) practiced by the Chinese scholastic traditions. These three linguistic phenomena established the conditions of possibility for the conception of religious language developed in the Ch'an kung-an tradition.
Dharani are sacred formulae customarily recited in original or classical languages that are not understood by those who intone them in memorized form for ritual purposes. Why recite a verse whose words are incomprehensible and whose meaning is unknown? To any devout practitioner it would be enough to reply that these were the most mysterious and sacred words emanating from the mind of ancient buddhas. Beyond that, presumably, these mysterious words must be thought to possess a power not transferable into Chinese through translation and therefore ungraspable inconcept. They must, in short, function at a level more basic than the conceptual. They must work on the practitioner without the requirement that one think about their literal or metaphorical meaning. The parallel and precedent here should be clear: the later kōan tradition in Zen understood its language to emanate directly from the mind of enlightenment and, although still using Chinese records as sources, to surpass conventional comprehension by leaving an effect on the practitioner at amore fundamental level of mentality. The ritual aura and mystery of kung-an practices in Ch'an monasteries by the end of the Sung were clearly parallel to the dharani and mantra practices in esoteric and tantric Buddhism.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48672142/The-Koan-Texts-and-Contexts-in-Zen-Buddhism-Steven-Heine-Dale-S-Wright
The Perfection of Wisdom Sutras, together with the Lotus Sutra, widely disseminated several forms of religious language that came to serve as the practical background for the development of the kōan.
We focus here on three of them: (1) dharani or sacred formulas, including mantra, practiced in esoteric Buddhism; (2) devotional recitation of the thought or name of the Buddha, the nien-fo used in the Pure Land School (J. nembutsu); and (3) the visualizations and conceptual "contemplations" (kuan) practiced by the Chinese scholastic traditions. These three linguistic phenomena established the conditions of possibility for the conception of religious language developed in the Ch'an kung-an tradition.
Dharani are sacred formulae customarily recited in original or classical languages that are not understood by those who intone them in memorized form for ritual purposes. Why recite a verse whose words are incomprehensible and whose meaning is unknown? To any devout practitioner it would be enough to reply that these were the most mysterious and sacred words emanating from the mind of ancient buddhas. Beyond that, presumably, these mysterious words must be thought to possess a power not transferable into Chinese through translation and therefore ungraspable inconcept. They must, in short, function at a level more basic than the conceptual. They must work on the practitioner without the requirement that one think about their literal or metaphorical meaning. The parallel and precedent here should be clear: the later kōan tradition in Zen understood its language to emanate directly from the mind of enlightenment and, although still using Chinese records as sources, to surpass conventional comprehension by leaving an effect on the practitioner at amore fundamental level of mentality. The ritual aura and mystery of kung-an practices in Ch'an monasteries by the end of the Sung were clearly parallel to the dharani and mantra practices in esoteric and tantric Buddhism.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48672142/The-Koan-Texts-and-Contexts-in-Zen-Buddhism-Steven-Heine-Dale-S-Wright
0
Comments
The Hocąk tribe maintains ceremonies which are so old, those presiding over them no longer know the exact meaning of many of the words and phrases.
It's a combination of reverence for the ancestors who did know the meaning, trust that the words do mean something even if it is only understood by those in the spirit world, and (I think) being comfortable with a certain amount of not-knowing.
In a way, I think some esoterica is an act of generosity or altruism--even though one would be more personally comfortable understanding every bit of a ceremony or teaching, for the sake of others (those in the past, those in the spirit world) one deals with this difficult thing--lost meanings, the resultant difficulty in memorizing, etc.--for others' sake, and for a belief that doing so benefits oneself in the end, as well.
Part of the problem is that the koans use a specialized language and metaphor system that it assumes the student is familiar with. If you don't know that, them the koan really is meaningless. You don't have the code to decypher the thing.
From his book Confession of a Buddhist Atheist, when Batchelor's Korean Zen master gave him the koan, “What is this” Batchelor almost couldn’t buy it from the start (typical western prejudices). He rejected the idea of a transcendent Mind even though he acknowledged that the “purpose of Zen meditation is to awaken to the Mind." Here Batchlor reveals his contempt for the Buddhist notion of Mind. He wrote:
“Once again, I found myself confronted by the specter of a disembodied spirit. The logic of Kusan Sunim’s argument failed to convince me. It rested on the assumption that there was “something” (i.e., Mind) that rules the body, which was beyond the reach of concepts and language. At the same time, this “something” was also my true original nature, my face before I was born, which somehow animated me. This sounded suspiciously like the Atman (Self/God) of Indian tradition that the Buddha had rejected.”
I really feel sorry for people like Batchelor. Rebirth will be endless for them.
"when you become awake, or enlightened, you meet your true self -- the empty self"
http://discussionbasedteaching.blogspot.com/2011/02/original-face.html
- I would say something like, well then, where is the you that becomes awake? And then get lost in paradoxes and the like. But now, for some reason, this makes perfect sense. It's like saying you need the eyes to see but it is not the eyes that see.
- or something like that
- perhaps
:-/
It's not that there's a "you" that becomes awake, but that there is awakening to this "you" that is not inherently real (i.e., not-self, a construct or false self). There's not a you that sees, or eyes that see, there's only "seeing". There are only these verbs... there's awakening or enlightenment as describing a process that applies to no fixed self whatsoever (but rather to emptiness or "Mind").
It does get easier with time. The more you come to see reality as empty, or emptiness, the more sense everything else (in Buddhism) makes. That's simply a matter of time and effort, since it's not about holding to a concept but about seeing directly how things are just this way.
What we call it can be confusing and/or cause conflicts between us. Emptiness captures that there's nothing to grasp (no permanence, no self), but Mind captures the flowing interdependent change (we are Mind moving)... to each his own! We just have to make sure not to take anything as a fixed self, as that immediately loses sight of the ungraspable nature of reality.
You don't have to be anything or anyone.
How liberating.
"We eat, excrete, sleep and get up; this our world. All we have to do beyond that is to die." -Ikkyu Sojun, Zen Master (1394-1491)
I also find it surprising and odd that he rejects the thought that something could be beyond language--love itself is generally accepted as being, often, beyond language; I wouldn't object if he theorized about this, but to reject it out of hand seems, I don't know, very hasty and not really in the spirit of inquiry.
Body-oriented is right. That whole section in Batchelor's book shines a light on much of what Batchelor is trying to do to Buddhism. I don't think it's good. His bias is so strong that we won't allow for the possibility that he could be wrong.
However; this application is squeezed into a traditional format which no sane person can relate to.
Have you ever asked yourself what our encounters between student and teacher look like in the eyes of someone who is not familiar with the context? We just look like a bunch of idiots I can assure you.
The whole thing fits in a particular concept of Enlightenment (Stuart Lachs points this out in his paper mentioned by @genkaku). It presumes we need moments of awakening. There’s nothing wrong with us; except for the fact that we don’t see that. We need to make some breakthrough.
Another aspect I guess is that these moments of realization possibly happen in the encounters with the teacher. These encounters are not just for verification but also for effectuation of kensho.
It turns the relationship with the teacher into something very important. Some teacher told me that Dogen said that practice is fifty percent meditation and fifty percent relationship with the teacher. I didn’t look up the quote but I can understand where the idea comes from.
It also turns our practice into a chase for special insights and the verification of these achievements.
Or doesn’t it?
This kind of thought makes me uncomfortable with Zen-practice, sometimes. When I look around in Zen-land I see a lot of self-absorbed people who are interested mainly in what’s going on in their minds and in chasing specialness; great attainments; a title.
Right now I think Shikantaza could be a cure for this. Just sit and don’t try to “get” anything out of it. Practice for the sake of practice.
And show the application of your spiritual practice in everyday-life. Convince your partner, your colleague, your kids that you attained something; if you must.
Conversation with the self: (the personal koan)
"Did you did good today?"... "Yes/No"... "Now what?"... "Do better"... "Whats better than today"... "Nothing."... "Are you sure?"... "No"... "To do better will mean to be sure."... "I have much work to do".... "Indeed you do."... "Then do it today"... "But today is over"... "Today is never over"... "Then niether is my work"
Remembering the cake of the past makes me hungry. Truly I cannot eat the cake because it is just a memory.
Away with this stale cake!
For instance, one of the first koans is "You know the sound two hands clapping make. What sound does one hand make?"
This forces the Zen student to penetrate the nature of duality. One hand makes no sound. So what sound is no sound? Sound - no sound. Is no-sound a sound? What's the difference? The mind goes in circles, trying to force the question to fit a dualistic mindset. So the answer, demonstrated, should tell the teacher you comprehend the paradox of duality.
1) ordinary information, to
2) unordinary puzzles which may lead, though, to ordinary conclusions, to
3) unordinary puzzles which may lead the mind to a deeper, less ordinary state, and
4) an unintelligible (or only mildly intelligible) object of meditation, and maybe even
5) a sort of mantra (unintelligible, or only mildly intelligible).
And of course everything in between. Granted, not all stages of this continuum may apply to any one school or sect, but at first glance there seems to be more overlap than meets the eye.
@Cinorjer said".....This forces the Zen student to penetrate the nature of duality. One hand makes no sound. So what sound is no sound? Sound - no sound. Is no-sound a sound? What's the difference? The mind goes in circles, trying to force the question to fit a dualistic mindset. So the answer, demonstrated, should tell the teacher you comprehend the paradox of duality."
Like
Reminds me of my secret disappointment in learning that the phrase, "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God" was really, "It is easier for a rope to pass through the eye of a needle..." (Via an Aramaic scholar who noted that that adage is still used today in Aramaic-speaking families).
Without falling into speech or silence,
he completely brings up the true imperative.
The clear solstice moon
settles its frosty disc among the distant pines.
"Dogen taught that the principle of no dependence upon words and letters should not mean abandoning the use of language, but rather that we should use it skillfully, instead of being used by it. Many people have fallen into the fallacy of negating language entirely. The truth is not to be found in one side or the other side—the truth is non-dual...
All phenomena in the universe—audible and inaudible, tangible and intangible, conscious and unconscious—are the self-expression of the buddha nature. Nothing is excluded from this. Dogen’s own teachings extended even into supernormal powers and into the realm of tantra—charms, spells, dharanis—which he understood and taught in a unique way. Tantra and tantric teachings, too, are based on a kind of communication that is neither speech nor silence."
http://mro.org/zmm/teachings/daido/teisho43.php
How can it be brought up?
Seeing this, there is no speech or silence.
The clear solstice moon,
The distant pines,
Are a dream; there is nothing to see
Beyond this.
Pure Mind is quite positive this is why really solving a koan is a tremendous accomplishment provided one's teacher is really awakened to pure Mind. From this awakening we learn what exactly is transmitted and how, for example, holding up a flower or blinking connects with pure Mind.
The Blue Cliff Records reveal that koans work by means of the hua-t'ou (here R.D.M. Shaw translates it with the term Pre-Voice).
“The real substance of the Universe, the ‘First Principle,’ that which is behind or beyond the Voice [hua] or expression of ultimate Truth, this ‘Pre-Voice’ is transmitted only from heart [mind] to heart [mind], and no matter how great or holy or advanced in Enlightenment a man may be he cannot transmit it by means of words and phrases. This Pre-Voice is not far away, it is indeed quite close to us, but unless one has had intimate, immediate contact with it—has had audience of it as one who has audience of the Emperor—this very near-at-hand Truth will be as faw off and separated from us as by thousands of worlds” (brackets are mine).
How did the first guy in history receive the transmission, and is it safe to say that one may either receive it, or recognize it? I'm assuming in the first receiver's case, it was self-realized, self-recognized?
"What is hua t’ou? (lit. word-head). Word is the spoken word, and head is that which precedes word.
For instance, when one says ‘Amitabha Buddha’, this is a word. Before it is said it is a hua t’ou (or ante-word). That which is called a hua t’ou is the moment before a thought arises.
As soon as a thought arises, it becomes a hua wei (lit. word-tail).
The moment before a thought arises is called ‘the un-born’. That void which is neither disturbed nor dull, and neither still nor (one-sided) is called ‘the unending’.
The unremitting turning of the light inwards on oneself, instant after instant, and exclusive of all other things, is called ‘looking into the hua t’ou’ or ‘taking care of the hua t’ou’.
When one looks into a hua t’ou, the most important thing is to give rise to a doubt. Doubt is the crutch of hua t’ou. For instance, when one is asked: ‘Who is repeating Buddha’s name?’ everybody knows that he himself repeats it, but is it repeated by the mouth or by the mind? If the mouth repeats it, why does not it do so when one sleeps? If the mind repeats it, what does the mind look like? As mind is intangible, one is not clear about it. Consequently some slight feeling of doubt arises about ‘WHO’. This doubt should not be coarse; the finer it is, the better. At all times and in all places, this doubt alone should be looked into unremittingly, like an ever-flowing stream, without giving rise to a second thought.
If this doubt persists, do not try to shake it; if it ceases to exist, one should gently give rise to it again. Beginners will find the hua t’ou more effective in some still place than amidst disturbance. However, one should not give rise to a discriminating mind; one should remain indifferent to either the effectiveness or ineffectiveness (of the hua t’ou) and one should take no notice of either stillness or disturbance. Thus, one should work at the training with singleness of mind.
http://buddhismnow.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/hua-tou/
It is not what you expect it to be. It is quite extraordinary. But with it you see where the old Zen maters were really coming from, like Bodhidharma who said, speaking of deluded people: "Not one of them understands the movement of his own hands and feet." This is quite profound. By awakening to pure Mind one knows exactly what moves their hands and feet.
BTW, Mind comes in many names such as pure Mind, unborn Mind, One Mind, Buddha Mind, clear light Mind, luminous Mind, radiant Mind.
Something seems wrong about this. Maybe we can talk about it.
On one hand, the simple reminder of the student that before we can learn anything new, we have to let go of our previous assumptions and beliefs is important. Also, I've had the honor to teach beginning meditation and nothing is more frustrating than a student who wants to argue with everything you say.
But if "Don't-Know Mind" or the puzzled fumbling with koans in a Zazen hall is enlightenment, then we have a problem. That means enlightenment sucks. I'll take my preconceived view of reality over stumbling around in the dark, thank you. Besides, if the Masters are examples for us, the last thing you could use to describe them is someone who doesn't know. Oh, they know. Look at that smug Master sitting there, shaking his head to my attempts to demonstrate One Hand Clapping. He knows, and he's not telling me.
Part of this and what drives Western students up the wall, is the Eastern way of teaching. The student is supposed to sit there like a sponge and not pester them with questions and absolutely never, never argue with the teacher or let on you might already know what he's teaching. That would be insulting the teacher, by suggesting he either isn't good at what he's doing or that you believe you're better than him. Also, you don't skip ahead or try to impress everyone by going any further than ordered. If the Master says it takes five years Zazen to get anywhere, you don't get to do it in two or three. It's the Master-student relationship as defined by Confucionism and it's what the Eastern Masters demand.
To demonstrate, I took some Chinese Inkbrush classes in Korea. The instructor started me off by having me paint a single brush stroke, left to right, bottom to top, thick to tapering. Over and over. For two entire classes. On the second day I got bored and did a little still life in the corner using this stroke and loved the way it turned out and showed it to the teacher. He threw a fit, tore up the paper, and told me that I must never do more than he allowed. I had broken the Eastern rules of teaching.
Yes, that teaching style drove me up the wall!
There were 2 ladies about 64 and 87. It did'nt matter
if you were three rows away from a King-size blanket or just finished 68 hats
for babies in the cold....they would un-loop my needle, and pull the whole string
right in front of me! AGGHHH!!!! Of course a teaching followed. It felt
the same whether I was 9 or 39, though.
Maybe this is the whole connection I have to
Koans. hahaha
I was just pointing out that, at least in some schools, the effect on the mind of being momentarily unsure of something--not having fixed on something--is important, because your analytical mind is in a different state when it is stopped, as opposed to when it has settled on a thought. And at that moment of stopping (the moment between two "goings," unless we're really accomplished meditators), you have a better chance of glimpsing the nature of mind. Actually, you are glimpsing it--it's a matter of whether you recognize it.
So at least in some schools, it seems, the point is not to intellectually ponder the question, nor even to keep your mind going in circles, but to startle the analytical mind into momentary stillness, since it doesn't immediately find an answer. If you ask, "What color is the sun?" an answer almost immediately forms, whereas you ask, "What is the sound of one hand?" you're not likely to think an answer as quickly. There's a pause with the sun question, too, but it's much shorter and harder to recognize.
I think "puzzled" is a problematic translation, because in English it carries a whimsical, childish, "fail" connotation. "Don't-Know Mind" also bugs us, because we want to know--not knowing is a big failure in our culture. But doesn't "Don't-Know Mind" just mean "Not-Yet-Fixed-On-An-Answer-Mind?"
Maybe others here know additional terms that are used? Translation is so, so vital to our perceptions and misperceptions of this thing called Buddhism, imo.
But a teacher will usually add some question on the end of them try get you to try and explain them to her/him. # 1 for example, they may say something like "Tell me what "empty cup" means", or something like that.
Or something like:
Do you see the difference in rows 3 and 74 ?
yes
What is it?
They look....??? I dont know.
Yes u do.
These loops look tighter weave than those.
What's with those? Whats the opposite of tight.
They are .....looser.
Yes. That difference is the effect of what cause?
(oh jeeze!)....um....my fingers doing different things..
There is not only tention in the arms, but practicing
mindfullness would have revealed the varying degrees.
You must meditate on that tention. Mindfullness will
prevent this again. This time, please pick another color
of thread, as it will keep you focused in a beginners mind.
So in some practices, in seems to me the koan is meant to stop the mind between thoughts, and in some practices, to stop the mind on one thought.