Looking back at it, I think my message was a bit gay. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 12:06 AM, roomsearching <[email protected]>wrote:
> Amazing stories. I love these little zen stories with great messages. > My inner guru must have been a Zen master in the past life. > Everytime I read a Zen story, he becomes extremely excited. > > To demonstrate the concept of destroying duality, Japanese kill whales > these days. > That way, people will stop having debates and arguments about whether > endangered species should be protected. > > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Mark Ty-Wharton > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Jump to >> Comments<http://zenhsin.org/blog/2009/12/03/a-commentary-on-the-zen-koan-nansen-cuts-the-cat-in-two/#comments> >> >> [image: manvim] >> >> The koan “Nansen Cuts the Cat in Two” is, as I see it, one of the most >> important koans ever. It not only reveals the deepest of the Zen of >> Hui-neng, but it also depicts the main conflict within Zen, that is to say >> the friction between the Gradual and the Sudden Schools during the Tang and >> Sung years.What comes first, Sunyata or Prajna? The koan gives a lucid >> answer, an answer that divided Zen into Soto and Rinzai. >> >> *Nansen Cuts the Cat in Two (The Gateless Gate, Case 14; translated by >> Koun Yamada. Center Publications 1979)* >> >> *The Case* >> >> Once the monks of the eastern and western Zen halls were quarreling about >> a cat. Nansen held up the cat and said, “You monks! If one of you can say a >> word, I will spare the cat. If you can’t say anything, I will put it to the >> sword.” No one could answer, so Nansen finally slew it. In the evening, when >> Joshu returned, Nansen told him what had happened. Joshu, thereupon, took >> off his sandals, put them on his head and walked off. Nansen said, “If you >> had been there, I could have spared the cat.” >> >> *Mumon’s Commentary* >> >> What is the meaning of Joshu’s putting his sandals on his head? If you can >> give a turning word concerning this matter, you will be able to see that >> Nansen’s command was not meaningless. But if you can’t, look out! Danger! >> >> *The Verse* >> >> Had Joshu been there He would have given the command instead Had he >> snatched away the sword, Even Nansen would have begged for his life. >> >> *Why does Nansen kill the cat?* >> >> Nansen cuts off the entangled discussion of the monks by using “the sword >> of Prajna”. Nansen’s sword points to Prajna or wisdom. Nansen is the >> Bodhisattva Manjushri. >> >> Manjushri’s most dynamic attribute is his Vajra sword. The sword cuts >> through ignorance and the entanglements of conceptual views. It cuts away >> ego and self-created obstacles. It can cut things in two, but it can also >> cut into one, by cutting the self-other dichotomy. It is said the sword can >> both give and take life. >> >> *Verse 31 from Yoka Daishi’s “Song Of Enlightenment”:* >> >> A man of great will carries with him a sword of Prajna, Whose flaming >> Vajra-blade cuts all the entanglements of knowledge and ignorance; It not >> only smashes in pieces the intellect of the philosophers But disheartens the >> spirit of the evil ones. >> >> So when Nansen kills the cat he points to non-duality. To show the monks >> that Zen is not based on words, he points to emptiness of thought by cutting >> the cat in two, that is, cutting LOGIC thus conveying non-thought or >> non-duality. Nansen tries to remove the dual and logic thinking of the >> monks. >> >> The problem with logic is, that logic is relative, not absolute. What is >> logical depends on where one is in time and space. So there is not one >> absolute logic, there are many “logics”. What is evident seen from one >> position is not evident seen from another position, hence logic is not logic >> but conflict. There IS nothing high or low, right or wrong. High or low and >> wright or wrong are concepts, the result of comparison not reality itself. >> That means our “logical” conclusions are conditioned and relative and this >> is the main source of illusions, conflicts, suffering and war. >> >> But it is Joshu not Nansen who knows the true method of how to use the >> sword of Prajna. Why could the answer of Joshu have saved the cat’s life? >> Because Joshu demonstrates his method is superior to that of Nansen. Nansen >> makes the mistake of not only negating words but also of negating forms. He >> is actually killing life through his method of total negation of both words >> and forms. Nansen’s sword of negation becomes a pointer to nothingness, not >> to emptiness, that is, wu-nien, no thought. The way of Nansen is nihilism, >> the destruction of life. >> >> Moreover, Nansen is doing an act of will when he cuts duality, but using >> will is the same as creating duality, a split between what ought to be and >> what is. Instead cultivation must be carried out by non-cultivation. That is >> what Joshu does. A mirror cannot be made by grinding a brick. The ordinary >> way, the ordinary mind is the Way. The method of Nansen is >> intellectualization which Zen utterly opposes, since intellectual efforts >> create duality hence karma. >> >> Joshu knows that to gain true insight, negation (denial) of not only >> thoughts but also of forms (appearences) only lead to nothingness. But >> nothingness is a dual concept, an abstraction, since it can only exist >> opposed to something. Hence negation of forms becomes denial of reality. >> Forms are THE empty reality, they are “what is”. Form is emptiness and >> emptiness is form Negation of forms is thus gazing at a void and reality >> freezes into an abstraction of nothingness. >> >> Hui-neng clarified, that negation is crucial when it comes to words and >> concepts, but it is a big mistake to use negation when it comes to conceive >> reality as it is. To overcome such an extreme nihilism one has to use >> NEGATION OF NEGATION that is, instead of excluding forms (negating >> appearances) one has to include forms, that is, see thoughts (and cats) as >> they appear in suchness, in a detached, empty manner.That is seeing, yet not >> seeing. Its not pure negation, it is the middle way. >> >> See things as they appear,in emptiness, is seeing with MIND (Hsing), which >> is very different from staring at a negated nothingness. The killing of the >> cat is a negation of form, of life. Seeing life as it is, empty yet not >> empty, is Prajna. Negating reality is the killing of life. >> >> Joshu experiences forms as functions of Mind, not as something which must >> be cut to nothingness.Seeing with the eyes of Prajna is experiencing that >> the spirituality of life is vital. >> >> Below is a small and incredible sharp mono on the difference between >> seeing in nothingness and in emptiness. >> >> *A mondo on Prajna* >> >> Yunju was crossing the river with Dongshan. >> >> Dongshan said, “How deep is it?” >> >> Yunju said, “it’s not wet” >> >> Dongshan said, “You rustic!” >> >> Yunju said, “What would you say, Master?” >> >> Dongshan said, “Not dry” . >> >> The small mondo is beautiful and exceptionally sharp: “it’s not wet” >> points to emptiness and “Not dry” points to Prajna (or Mind) because: >> >> “Not wet” leaves out anything, it points to nothingness. If not wet, then >> what is it? There is no pointer to any reality. The negation is total. >> >> “Not dry” is not a total negation. “Not dry” points to water without using >> the word “water”. The negation is just a negation of words but not of our >> conscience, our mind. It is empty mind or emptiness. >> >> Hence “not wet” is not prajna, it is just pointing to nothingness, whereas >> “not dry” is Prajna since it points to water, but not to the concept of >> “water”. Hence it is “knowing in emptiness”. Knowledge not based on words >> but on intuition is Prajna. It is the middle Way. >> >> So a NATURAL response to circumstances, not a response conditioned by the >> intellect is the Way and that is the way of Joshu. Nansen represents the Zen >> INTELLECT, while Joshu is the SPIRIT of Zen. Joshu puts the shoes on his >> head thereby showing his empty innocence, while Nansen demonstrates his >> rational goal and will by cutting the cat in two. In order to cut duality he >> creates duality. The intellect IS dual. It is a killer because when one >> chooses A one must logical reject (kill) B. The mistake of Nansen is his >> choosing which is conditioned by his words. He had to kill the cat. Words >> create their own reality. >> >> Why would even Nansen have begged for his life had Joshu snatched away the >> sword? Because the ultimate truth cannot be reached with language, >> doctrines, not even with negation. Prajna can only be reached with a Mind >> totally devoid of any concepts, but not devoid of conscience. One has to >> negate the the idea of oneself. Nansen has to turn the sword, the knife, >> against the concept of himself not against a cat. >> >> A Japanese Zen Master in the Tokugawa period named Shido Bunan had a waka >> poem: >> >> Die while alive, and be completely dead, >> then do whatever you will, all is good. >> >> The koan is an attack on any tendency to intellectualize Zen. It is not an >> incident that Nansen says “You monks! If one of you can say a word, I will >> spare the cat. This “say a word” is the key to the main question of the koan >> and the silence of Joshu is the answer of the koan. The koan is a defense of >> the most ancient definition of zen: “A specific transmission outside >> writings, no dependence with respect to words and letters ·” >> >> As formulated by Yi-hsuan: >> >> “Only do ordinary things with no special efforts, relieve your bowels, >> pass water wear your clothes, eat your food, and, when tired, lie down! >> Simple fellows will laugh at you, but the wise will understand.” >> >> The koan is deeply rooted in Hui-neng Zen with its emphasis on suchness >> and Prajna as opposed to a more formalized type of Zen.The distinctions >> between monastic authorities and lay followers and between Buddha and >> ordinary being are here called into question by the person of Joshu who has >> a striking similarity with Vimalakīrti, a layman and ordinary man of the >> world who nevertheless rivals the Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī (Nansen) himself in >> understanding. >> >> In essence, Vimalakirti (Joshu) clears up the confusions surrounding the >> central Buddhist concept of emptiness, or voidness— presenting it not as >> nihilism but rather “as the joyous and compassionate commitment to living >> beings born form an unwavering confrontation with the inconceivable >> profundity of ultimate reality.” >> >> The koan shows a turn in its presentation of the Mahāyāna teaching of >> emptiness (śūnyatā). The koan is a homage to Joshu who demonstrates the >> ‘thunderous silence of Vimalakīrti’ and the admiration is understandable. >> The succinct and profound sayings and koans of Joshu are unsurpassable in >> their Zen purity. >> >> However, there is a more genuine Zen way of expressing the meaning of >> “Nansen kills the cat”, since koans are certainly not meant to be >> interpreted but to be understood in suchness that is, as self-evident: >> >> *Cut words about what is, but do not cut what is.* >> >> The Haiku poet and Zen monk Basho is beautifully in accordance with this >> principle: >> >> A flash of lightening: >> throug the darkness goes >> the cry of a night heron >> >> Note >> >> *It is not even worth discussing whether Nansen actually killed the cat >> or not, since the killing of the cat is nothing but a pointer. “Killing the >> cat” is Zen talk just like when Zen Master Lin Chi says, “If you meet the >> Buddha, kill the Buddha. If you meet a Patriarch, kill the Patriarch.” Zen >> sayings and koans use concrete phenomena as pointers to abstract principles >> to avoid theorizing and speculations. Koans are always formulated concretely >> not philosophical. They are upayic or pedagogic answers or stories by the >> masters.* >> >> ZenFrog (ZenHsin) >> >> Visit ZenHsin Site >> >> *Haiku* >> >> A Collection of Haiku Poems <http://zenhsin.org/haiku/> >> >> *Krishnamurti* >> >> The iconoclastic writings of Krishnamurti<http://zenhsin.org/krishnamurti/> >> >> *Mahayana* >> >> Mahayana the philosophical foundation of Zen<http://zenhsin.org/mahayana/> >> >> *Scriptures and Sutras* >> >> Scriptures and Sutras Collection <http://zenhsin.org/scriptures/> >> >> *Taoism* >> >> Taoism: the Chinese influence <http://zenhsin.org/taoism/> >> >> *Zen Philosophy* >> >> Zen Principles and Philosophy <http://zenhsin.org/zenphilosophy/> >> >> *Zen Poems* >> >> Collection of Zen Poems <http://zenhsin.org/zenpoems/> >> >> *Zen Teachings* >> >> Zen Teachings, Koans and Zazen <http://zenhsin.org/zenteachings/> >> >> *Glossary* >> >> Zen Glossary <http://zenhsin.org/glossary.html> >> >> *Home* >> >> ZenHsin Home <http://zenhsin.org/> >> >> Image source >> >> Vimalakirti in debate with the bodhisattva Manjusri, detail from a wall >> painting in Cave 103 of Dunhuang, Gansu province, China, dated to the Tang >> Dynasty, 8th century >> >> Date >> >> 8th century AD >> >> Source >> >> Scanned from Michael Sullivan’s The Arts of China: Fourth Edition (1999) >> >> Author >> >> Chinese artist >> >> Permission >> >> >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vimalakirti_debating_Manjusri,_Tang_Dynasty.jpg >> >> This image (or other media file) is in the public domain because its >> copyright has expired. >> >> This applies to the United States, Australia, the European Union and those >> countries with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years. >> >> <http://zenhsin.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/froggy.jpg> >> >> No Comments >> >> Filed under Zen <http://zenhsin.org/blog/category/zen/>, Zen >> Practice<http://zenhsin.org/blog/category/zen-practice/> >> , koan <http://zenhsin.org/blog/category/koan/> >> > >
