I was going to mention that :-) Sent from an iPhone
On 6 Aug 2010, at 00:24, roomsearching <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > > > 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 > > Krishnamurti > > The iconoclastic writings of Krishnamurti > > Mahayana > > Mahayana the philosophical foundation of Zen > > Scriptures and Sutras > > Scriptures and Sutras Collection > > Taoism > > Taoism: the Chinese influence > > Zen Philosophy > > Zen Principles and Philosophy > > Zen Poems > > Collection of Zen Poems > > Zen Teachings > > Zen Teachings, Koans and Zazen > > Glossary > > Zen Glossary > > Home > > ZenHsin Home > > 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. > > > > No CommentsFiled under Zen, Zen Practice, koan > >
