Talk:Koan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Current questions and issues

  • Pinyin rendering of Tsung-jung Lu?
  • What is a good translation for Tsung-jung Lu? Cleary renders it as Book of Serenity but I have also seen it elsewhere as Book of Equanimity (e.g., more than 180 Google hits on that title). Under the circumstances I wonder--is "serenity" something of a marketing term?

-munge 15 July 04

  • Etymology section: I doubt that kung fu an tu in Chinese is actually prounounced ko-fu no an-toku in Japanese. The former seems to be a 4 character expression in Chinese, and the latter seems to be a 5 character expression in Japanese. I'd appreciate if anyone can straighten that out. If I can't get some confirmation or a correct Japanese rendering, I'm likely to delete the Japanese rendering that's there.

-munge 16 Sept 04

The revision

-munge 1 July 04

Here are some of the explanations of the revision.

  • Many say a koan is not a kind of riddle or puzzle (references below). "Conundrum" doesn't address this concern, as it's pretty much a synonym for riddle. There is a particular sense of the word "enigma" that might apply, but I'be not seen that used in koan literature (and FWIW Thich Nhat Hanh nixes "enigma" on p57 of Zen Keys). So, let's not oversimplify.
  • The existing article says that koan originally referred to a signpost, with no citation and none offered after some months. I deleted the signpost. Broad consensus seems to exist about Chung Feng Ming Pen's classic etymology.
  • It is misleading to say that Soto "does not focus on" koans; in the revision, I've tried to express a non-sectarian view. There was also some earlier stuff about Soto advocating "gradual enlightenment" which I believe is false.
  • "Skillful means"..."According to their ability"...It is not clear that koans are necessarily a "means"; means and ends are a duality and koans supercede (but do not necessarily exclude) dualities. (If you say the two hermits are the same, you do not have the eye...) See for example Book of Serenity case #68; and Hakuin's Song of Zazen on the identity of case and effect. I also recommend avoiding use of the word "subject" or "instrument" when referring to koans. Very complex topic.
  • "Koans sometimes...have an answer or explanation that logically follows..." ?!Traditionally, koans have no answers, no explanations, and the response that's in accord with circumstances is not logical. Chase down the first two cites in note [4] if interested.
  • "This meat is of prime quality". I'll be blunt: With all due respect to Thich Nhat Hanh. That's dog meat advertised as lamb chops. (See Wu-Men Kuan case #6). I wager he will concur.
  • I corrected some of the obvious problems in the section "Koan Interpretation" (formerly, "Examples"). But not all. Koans are fun. But they are also grave matters, so be careful.
(Umm..."skillfull means" is the customary translation of upaya, which is a very specific concept. There are indeed those who would class all practices as upayas, but this is not at all universal and certainly not to be assumed. On the other hand, the sentence in the current article is a very application of the concept, and I have no objection to removing it. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 09:57, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC))
Okay, I'm doing some cleanup on the proposed article. Whoever wrote this seems to have a deep and troubling love affair with sentence fragments. ::grin:: Also, this sentence, "The response to a koan that's in accord with circumstances does not necessarily correspond to a fixed verbal answer or particular gesture," I removed because I wasn't sure how to rescue it from its grammatical problems without possibly losing the intended meaning. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 10:06, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I find that definitions in reference books do not necessarily consist of complete sentences.
As for the sentence in question, I suppose all I meant was that "Appropriate responses vary according to circumstances. A koan does not have a fixed answer that is appropriate in every circumstance." -munge 27 June 04
Also, are the two remaining examples meant as a placeholder for all the others, too, or is there an objection raised? If so, specific standards of inclusion and exclusion should be discussed. Also, I don't like the reference style; if this is the wikipedia standard (ewww, I hope not), could I be pointed to it? If not, might I suggest a more traditional endnoting style, such as <sup>[[#references|1]]</sup>, i.e., 1? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 10:17, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
My objection is mainly that the beginning of the article shouldn't get bogged down in interpreting specific koans. Interpretation is fun. There's room for interpretation of koans in the wiki. But if we make interpreation the priority, it completely misses the point of what a koan is. Proliferating more concepts is not the point. Another objection is that people are throwing stuff in there that aren't exactly koans.
For the first set of "Examples", I propose we keep it to a short list of the critical phrases from very well known koans, and save the longer list for later. I get the idea that people want to play, so I suggest that the later section "Koan interpretation" is for that. Is that reasonable?
Standards for inclusion of koans for the article as a whole: I suggest including only if a) It is in a koan collection (identify the case and the collection); or b) it's part of Hakuin's oral tradition, like "sound of one hand"; or c) exceptions that have a good reason, where you explain the good reason--like the "she keeps calling to her attendant..." koan that supposedly accompanied Yuan Wu's first insights (the good reasons being, he was contemplating phrases; later he was the author of the Blue Cliff Record; it's arguably the earliest surviving recorded example of someone experiencing Zen insight by contemplating phrases). Is that reasonable?
If it's just a Zen story, even an enlightenment story, or a statement from the sayings and doings of masters, that's nice but it doesn't necessarily make something a koan. For example, as far as I know, "...kill the buddha" is not exactly a koan. It's part of the commentary to the Wu/Mu/No koan and it's part of the Lin Chi Lu (J. Rinzairoku); if I'm wrong, somebody cite the case, OK? It either belongs on the Lin Chi page, or needs to be discussed in regard to what it means in the context of wu/mu/no...
Footnotes: Yes, superscript makes sense. Is that the only problem you have with the footnotes? -munge 27-8 June 04

The future of this article

  • Convert all Wade-Giles renderings to Pinyin, but on first incidence, give Wade-Giles renderings and Japanese pronunciation.
  • Lose the redundancies
  • Move analysis of the wu/mu/no koan to a separate page? Maybe the mu page?
  • Explanation of the hua tou (critical phrase)? Or is existing mention enough?
  • Explanation of checking questions (I suspect the story of Huijiao is not a koan itself as stated in the article but more commonly a checking question on the cypress tree koan.)
  • Explanation of capping phrase (jakugo) practice
  • The role of Ta Hui Tsung Kao (1089-1163), who provided a lot of written advice for lay students who practiced with koans; regrettably his written material on koans is not completely translated into English, most of what is translated into English appears to be out of print; you can get a little of it if you google Ta Hui and Chun-Fang Yu; more complete sources may be Robert Buswell's book on Chinul, and Miriam Levering's dissertation, which I think also has some material on the next item;
  • Women who figure in koans e.g. Iron Grindstone Lu; and women who taught koan practice (e.g. Miao Tao?)
  • The role of koans in the martial arts
  • Cultural differences among Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Western koan students/practitioners (e.g. Chinese integration with Pure Land; contemporary Japanese literary tradition; reconcilliation with Western naturalistic philosophy? Distinguishing features of study/practice in Korean Son? In Vietnamese Son? Mu as a lifelong practice in some places?)
  • If Zen is a separate teaching outside the canon, how did it come to encompass so much literature?
  • Can any perplexing or paradoxical situation be a koan?
  • The koan in the West and modern koans
  • Role of the koan in sectarian rivalry and the competition for patronage (attempting non-sectarian coverage of Northern/Southern, Rinzai/Soto, sudden/gradual controversies). Here's an citation along those lines that may prove useful. It seems to show that a Northern School practice had some similarity to contemplating phrases. According to Northern School text, Hung Jen taught that "When you are sitting, settle your face, arrange your body properly, and sit straight. Relax your body and mind. Through all of space, see as from afar a single word. There is an inherent sequence. People of beginner's mentality do a lot of grasping at objects. You should contemplate a single word in your mind for now." From p70, Zen Dawn, J.C. Cleary, translation of Record of the Teachers and the Students of the Lanka a.k.a. Lengqui shizu ji, copies discovered at Tun Huang during the 20th century. Even skeptics attribute this work to Jingjue during the first half of the 8th century. Jingjue himself cites as the source as his own teacher Xuanze, who Jingjue indicates was a student of Hung-Jen. See also p61 for a related remark about a "single word" that Jingje attributes to 4th ancestor Daoxin. I found it remarkable that that dating that corresponds to some 2 centuries before Chao Chou, some 3 centuries before the earliest surviving koan collections. Today's students who practice "mu" or "wu" or "no" of Case #1 of the Wu Men Kuan/Mumonkan might see some similarity with "a single word". Comments appreciated.

-munge Dec 03 - Jul 04

I added some stuff, using some information (not plagiarized ;)) from Zen Keys by Thich Nhat Hanh. I didn't take into account the changes proposed on this talk page yet. --Furrykef 16:20, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Mu

I'm pretty sure Chao-chou's "mu" was intended simply to mean "no" (although I am not a great scholar on the matter). Moreover, "mu" is a Japanese word and not Chinese, and therefore has Japanese connotations attached to it; i.e., the koan does not mean precisely the same thing in the two languages. But I think "no" is the best translation because it is meant to contradict the usual teaching that, yes, a dog has the Buddha nature. If we can agree on this then I will probably edit Zhaozhou and Mu (Japanese word) accordingly. --Furrykef 18:48, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

You may be right. I'm inclined to believe the "nonanswer" theory just because it's more Zenlike. How are we to know whether a dog has a Buddha-nature? In the "nonanswer" sense, mu concisely and elegantly reveals to the student that some things are unknowable. If mu meant yes or no, this example is not actually a koan: it does not encourage a moment of insight; it simply states a supposed fact.
What did Zhaozhou actually mean? Mu. --Eequor 19:17, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Something to note: this koan is most often attributed to Joshu, which is Zhaozhou's name transliterated into Japanese. This demonstrates that the koan was translated first into Japanese and then to English. Zhaozhou did not actually say mu; he said wu, which was translated into Japanese as mu. --Eequor 19:31, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Dog, Buddha-nature
The perfect pick, the right command
As you just begin to say "it has" or "has not"
You lose your body and life!
-- Wumen
Hence the answer wu, nothingness. --Eequor 19:38, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
On re-reading this I tend to agree with Eequor. First, Wumen obviously did not say "mu" because he did not speak Japanese. Second, an accurate translation would be "no"; but third, it would be inaccurate to interpret that as indicating that Zhaozhou agreed or disagreed. The clue is in comparing the monk's actual question--"Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?" (not just "Does a dog have Buddha nature?"!) Wumen's verse is even trickier than it sounds (hint: Is losing your life a bad thing in Zen?) but still suggests Zhaozhou is responding to—not necessarily answering—the monk's question. Not so far from Hofstater's idea that he's "unasking" the question or saying no to both choices the monk gives him; but even that is saying too much I feel. I'd say ultimately, "no" expresses the sound of his breath, not a sense of negation. (I find the idea that he's imitating a bark is just silly, but don't get me wrong; silliness is OK, too.) Or better, the meaning, such as it is, is only accessible to one who sits, not to one who interprets. The one major place I really differ is that at least some Zen teachers (including mine) are translating from the Chinese nowadays, not retranslating Japanese; also, RH Blyth's translation (1966) gives the old Chinese right there next to the English; and I have an idea that Robert Aitken's translation (see footnote 10 in the article) is directly from the Chinese. -munge 15 July 2004

But Zhouzhou did answer the question directly with yes or no: as I have stated in the article itself, he has answered both the negative "wu/mu" and what translates to the affirmative "yes", which would make a natural opposing answer to "wu". The idea was the more desirable answer to give depended on the person, not the question. In Zen Keys, Thich Nhat Hanh wrote, "On the conceptual level, objective truth is on the side of the word 'yes', because in Mahayana Buddhist circles it is said that every being has the nature of awakening. But in the world of ultimate reality, the word 'yes' is no longer a concept that is opposed to the concept 'no'." --Furrykef 19:56, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a source that shows he said anything other than wu? --Eequor 20:11, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
By the 12th century, both yes and no answers were picked up as case #18 of the Tsung Jung Lu, aka Book of Serenity as translated by Thomas Cleary. Discussed in commentary by Shibayama (1974) on the wu koan, case #1 of The Gateless Barrier, also originally from the 12th century, and also in John Daido Loori's book Two Arrows Meeting in Mid Air. FWIW, I think it seems very unlikely that an encyclopedia (or discussion among students) will be sufficient to create the conditions whereby a student penetrates a koan, though I suppose anything's possible. -munge 1 June 2004

Now, see, my professor told us that "wu" was meant to stand simultaneously for "no" and for the sound of a dog barking. ::grin:: -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

The monk is saying in effect "show me your Buddha nature". ``...it is a challenge to Chao-chou to articulate his understanding of the vexed buddha-nature issue in such a manner that he remains true to Ch'an principles. Thus Chao-chou must respond in a fashion that does not reify, or express attachment to, the notion of buddha-nature, whether of the sentient or the insentient. Chao-chou's response--his unapologetic denial of buddha-nature to dogs--denotes his freedom from attachment to doctrine (i.e., his acknowledgment that no conventional formulation is ultimate), and his refusal to attempt to articulate a medial or transcendental position." per Robert Sharf, On the Buddha-Nature of Insentient Things available at http://kr.buddhism.org/zen/koan/Robert_Sharf-e.htm I find there are some errors in the article but it makes several important points and is consistent with teishos of Shibayama and Aitken, which aren't on the Web. This also relates to the oak tree (some say cypress) thing, too; see http://www.beliefnet.com/story/33/story_3313_1.html. Knowing this is not the same as realizing, recognizing, actualizing the koan by the way. Many would say that it is not particularly helpful either, nor is it necessarily unhelpful. -munge 18 June 04
Incidentally, mu in Toki Pona can be a dog's bark (as well as any other animal noise). soweli li mu can mean the dog barked. --Eequor 21:18, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Older Issues and Comments

Isn't Ch'an and Zen the same thing ? One in China, second in Japan ?Taw

Yes and no. I'd guess they're enough alike to be on the same Wikipedia page for now, but IMHO there was some change over the centuries and kilometers. (I am not an expert on this.)
Ch'an and Zen are just two different pronunciations of the same Han character, (U+79AA in Unicode). How the Chinese and Japanese version of the two religions diverged is out of my league. But if the name writes the same way, at least they are from the same origin even though they may have evolved differently. A look up in a Chinese dictionary entry at (http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/cgi-bin/agrep-lindict?query=%c1%49&category=wholerecord) shows that the word is from a Sanskrit term "Channa" . Another search of all the Sankris based Chinese terms (http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/cgi-bin/agrep-lindict?query=Sanskr.&category=full&boo=no&ignore=on&substr=on&order=all) reveals many Chinese Buddhaism terminologies and their explanation.

The Chinese word Ch'an (in Mandarin) is pronounced as Zim(3) in Cantonese. Who know how it is pronounced in other Chinese dialects? And who know where the Japanese learned the pronounciation of this Han character? Though obviously not from Mandarin. However, Zen and Zim are more closely related than Zen vs Ch'an. Apparently, the Sanskrit word Channa was transliterated into a Chinese word phonetically. Then the Chinese word spreaded to different dialects which each has its own pronunciation for the same word. When the Japanese picked up the word, it no longer sounded like the Sanskrit original.

I think it's fair to say that in the English language, Zen refers to the various Asian meditation schools that trace their lineage--or at least, heritage--to the Chinese Ch'an schools, which in turn, by common tradition, trace their lineage to Bodhidharma (6th century?). I think the teachers would say that the practices are more similar to each other than they are to other Buddhist schools, and that the essence, such as it is, of the teachings is identical. However, there are clearly cultural differences in the way that Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and I also understand Vietnamese varieties of Ch'an/Zen/Son are practiced/taught.
Here's another take on "same" and "different" with regard to Ch'an/Zen/Son: Master Yunmen [864-949, also called Ummon] asked a monk "An old man said, 'In the relam of non-dualism there is not the slightest obstacle between self and other'. What about Japan and Korea in this context?" The monk said "They are not different". Yunmen responded "You go to hell". (See Master Yunmen, translated by Urs App, fragment 272.) At the risk of oversimplifying, it seems to me that Zen is not about having naive views of nonduality, not about thinking that everything is the same. -munge, 14 March 2004
Something like this: Dhyana/Channa > Ch'an/Zim > Zen.  :-)

Could some examples of koans go up here, or are they ineffective in translation? - Stuart Presnell

They are perfectly effective in translations. I don't know of any good sources off the top of my head, other than in Hofstadter's "Godel Escher Bach" book Mark Jeays

Soucres: Probably the most available sources in English are the Wu-Men Kuan (aka Mumonkan, aka Gateless Barrier, aka Gateless Gate), and the Pi-Yen Lu (aka Blue Cliff Record). They are on the order of 800 and 900 years old respectively, and there are several translations in English. E.g. for Wu-Men Kuan, notably there are two (separate) translations called "Gateless Barrier" by Shibayama and Aitken. Other translations of the same work are by Cleary, Senzaki & Reps, Sekida, and Yamada. I would say that the differences among translations point out to anyone that there are certainly serious issues raised by translation and that there is no "best" translation; e.g. Shibayama points out (in case 1) that the monk asking Chao Chou about the dog was prefigured by earlier dialogs, while Aitken (and everybody else) seems to omit this; yet Shibayama translates the last line of Wu-Men/Mumon's poem in case 2 as being about "regrets" while Aitken's translation of "mistakes" evokes the possibility that there is nothing necessarily regrettable about making mistakes. Hofstatder is careful to point out that he does not claim to have fully penetrated a koan, and I for one don't find his presentation of koans sufficient to convey to a reader how to study them earnestly, let alone practice with them, leaving open the possibility that someone else needs to write a book that fully reveals the connection between Goedel's Proof and Ma-Tsu's "it is not mind, it is not Buddha, it is not a thing".

munge, 9 March 2004

With all due respect to Minsky et al I feel the AI koans merit a separate page.

I couldn't agree more. While I realize that, as all things on the Internet, the content of Wikipedia will tend (at least at first) to be skewed towards the interests of "computer geeks" (such as myself), this is a particularly jarring example. Koans are a rich subject, yet over half of this page is devoted to the relatively obscure and less culturally-significant issue of AI koans.
Yeah, I know, if I don't like it, fix it myself. Maybe I will.

--- M. E. Smith

AI Koans

What can you do about AI koans without simply copying the section out of the hacker's dictionary?

Also regarding the sussman/minsky koan: the point is perhaps that just because you make yourself ignorant of some fact (by closing your eyes, or by getting a randomiser to pick values), doesn't meanthat fact is not there.

Better yet, can we get rid of the AI koans all together? Does this added bit of nerdery really enhance the article? - Nat Krause 05:05, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It belongs in a separate article, if anywhere. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 19:21, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And now the "koans" have gone away. --[[User:Eequor|η♀υωρ]] 03:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Eequor! user:munge 17 Nov 2004

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Koan/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Consider delineating between two Koan entries: one for those who wish to read a text book definition, one for those who wish to actually embody koans.

Last edited at 00:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

FAQ

Is a koan a kind of riddle, puzzle, conundrum, or enigma?
No. The English language has no synonym for koan. The point of a riddle is for one to find an answer. It would be more accurate to say that a koan's purpose is to make one aware of the penumbra in which the question posed in the koan can even exist. As a by product of becoming aware of the penumbra in which the question exists, the question in the koan resolves to a non-question. (Just for clarification: the resolution of a koan is not because the recipient has found an affirmative answer for the now non-existent question. How could the recipient answer a non-question?) As such, there is an entirely different relationship to be realized between the recipient of a koan and the recipient of a riddle. Added by (DAK) Danielkaplan123 (talk • contribs)
Another useful way to understand a Koan in comparison to a Riddle is that the two have the same relationship as an Ordeal to a Challenge. An ordeal and a challenge are both experiences that require effort, but a challenge is overcome by the unchanged individual who undertook it - while an ordeal by definition changes (overcomes) the person who undertook it. So the essence of an ordeal is to be changed by the ordeal, while the essence of a challenge is to overcome the challenge. In this way, a Koan is an Ordeal as a Riddle is a Challenge. If you understand this, it will ease right relationship to a Koan. Added by (DAK) Danielkaplan123 (talk • contribs)
Can any perplexing or paradoxical situation be a koan?
Yes. One point of all koans is to make the recipient aware of their reaction to the koan directly through their experience. When you listen/watch/feel your mind chase the answer to a perplexing or paradoxical situation like a dog chases his tail, that's True (like the computer screen you're reading this on right now) and unlike anything the mind comes up which is just more thought or mind.. When you realize that as the observer of your mind, that you are a separate, larger, entity than your mind (the field in which the mind plays), all koans will make sense to you. When you realize that the mind that chases the koan is the same mind that chases life, then you can live life instead of being lived by your mind. Added by (DAK) Danielkaplan123 (talk • contribs)
Is a koan a literary precedent?
Another English term for relating to a koan is precedent, as koan are the literary precedents established as examples of Zen. In a court of law one compares today's case against the precedents of past cases, and in Zen one compares one's own underlying assumptions about reality against the precedents of the past cases. But while precedent accurately portrays the role and status of koan within Zen, the term does not convey in English quite the usage of koan in the specific context of Zen, since use of the koan as the standard against which one compare's one's experience of Zen evokes the sense of puzzlement of the intellect in the student until he/she gets it (resolves the penumbra surrounding the supposed question) through the intuitive process, and then it doesn't seem puzzling at all (hence a non-question). (GW)
What's the correct answer to this koan?
The correct answer is one's own understanding of the koan. If someone gives you an answer that manages to fool your teacher when you repeat it, what have you learned? And how will you respond to the next one? Perhaps there is no pattern.
However, the word "understanding" presents the problem of intellectualization when translating the psychological process of working with koans into the academic framework of questions and answers. Koan answers are not an intellectual understandings, they are practical or imagistic responses. For example, one Wikipedia entry describes a usage of the term understanding as "A person understands the weather if he/she is able to predict and to give an explanation of some of its features, etc." That is not a proper expression of understanding when working with koans, because the "answers" to koans don't have anything to do with intellectual "explanation" or "prediction" as those terms are usually used. In the context of demonstrating one's understanding of a koan to a teacher, a person shows he/she understands the weather not by explanation or prediction but by showing the opening an umbrella in the rain or removing a coat in the warm sunshine.(GW)
Aren't koans an instrument that people use to reach enlightenment? Skillful means and all that? Why not just come out and say it?
Maybe you are the instrument—consider that. But see Hakuin's "Song of Zazen", which says that cause and effect are the same. Every means is itself an end. Most teachers agree that koans supercede subject-object duality, so the "instrumentalist" view is not helpful.:Koans are instruments in the sense of musical instruments. As some people make devine music with a musical instrument when others just make noise, some people make enlightenment with koans when others just make ignorance or confusion. One works with the instrument to "reach" the result, but the result is not achieved though an "instrumentalist" view because an instrumentalist view is typically limited by the subject-object distinction. The great musician becomes one with the instrument to show the result, and the Zen student becomes one with the koan to show the result. In this sense the instrumentalist view must be transcended.(GW)
In his "Ode to Sitting Meditation" (坐禅和讃, Zazen Wasan) Hakuin doesn't say "cause and effect are the same." He says, "Then opens the gate of the oneness of cause and effect." Saying "cause and effect are the same" implies lack of differentiation, while "oneness of cause and effect" means oneness within the differentiation. In other words, cause and effect are not dissolved into sameness by denial of their difference, instead the essential working of cause and effect is not denied but is realized through an appreciation of their underlying oneness. It is an important nuance that is portrayed in the koan case #2 known as "Baizheng's Fox" (J. Hyakujo) of the Gateless Checkpoint (erroneously translated as the Gateless Gate) (無門關, C. Wumen Guan, J. Mumonkan). (GW, updated 7/03/07)
"...effect and cause are the same" according to Robert Aitken, also published in Taking the Path of Zen, p112-113. Another Aitken translation reportedly has it as "The oneness of cause and effect is clear". Similarly, D.T. Suzuki reportedly has it as "...the oneness of cause and effect". I am curious how Norman Waddell translated it, possibly in his Essential Teachings. --Munge 08:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Some would say this is an example of Zen pedantry and reflects Zen's tendency to obtuseness, obfuscation, and political correctness in refusing to use conventional words in their conventional sense. According to the vast zen literature, many zen students do in fact actually 'use' koans to 'gain' enlightenment whether or not such terms are technically correct from an 'enlightened' point of view. See Philip Kapleau's book Three Pillars of Zen for clear examples of koan 'usage'.
See The Zen Koan (or Zen Dust) by Miura and Sasaki, pxi; "To say that it is used as a subject of meditation is to state the fact incorrectly". See also Zen Keys by Thich Nhat Hanh, p57: "...we cannot say it is a theme or subject of meditation." See also The Koan, p281, where Victor Hori quotes Hee Jin Kim; they both criticize the "instrumentalist" view of koans, that they are a "means" to something. Hori reiterates this understanding in the introduction to Zen Sand. As the article stands right now, "Koans are often used...to induce an experience of enlightenment..." expresses as fact what is actually a particular POV, refuted by these authors, whose lineage and scholarship are not in question. They do not make obtuse statements; they are quite direct, and they are not made in a context of mystical commentary. Some would say Hakuun's statement was not obtuse either, but a straightforward expression that every means is itself an end, a theme reiterated in rational western literature. I suggest this issue could be handled in a subsection of the article. I've tried to make sure that all controversial statements in the 1st half of the article are well documented, as you may have noticed. If teachers make many clear statements that koans are "used" and whatnot, perhaps you'd be so kind as to cite some specific examples, and one of us can write a section on "two attitudes about the use of koans" or something like that, OK? --Munge 04:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Update: I see that on p12 of Three Pillars of Zen, edited by Philip Kapleau, he writes that koan zazen "must not be confused with...fixing one's mind on an idea or object." This is the same page where the book first explains how to practice with koans. I'll stipulate that he sometimes does write "use koans" or "utilize koans" (p6, p64). But evidently, Kapleau's 'usage' comes with qualifications. --Munge 05:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Dog's Buddha nature

I read in a book on koans that the answer wu/mu is also an onomatopoeia of a dog's bark. Anyone has any knowledge of this? Nazroon (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What book? Thinman10 (talk) 08:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In Joe Hyam's "Zen in the Martial Arts" the koan is: A monk asked Chao-chou, "Has the dog Buddha nature or not?" Chao-chou said, "Woof." 

- this at least implies that "mu/wu" is onomatopoetical for the sound of a dog's bark.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.228.211.218 (talk) 22:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Koans are not games, or tricks, or puzzles, or paradoxes. For "mu/wu" to be onomatopoetical for the sound of a dog's bark would be a bit of fun, a parlor puzzle to amuse and delight. If this is the depth of Joe Hyam's understanding of Zen koans (and I'm not suggesting for a moment that it is), it would be a very shallow pool indeed to swim in. By the way, I had a search for this in Hyam's book on Amazon and couldn't find it. Is it possible he has wisely removed this from some later editions? I have never seen any authoritative translation of this koan claiming Chao-chou said "woof". "Mu" or "wu" is usually translated into English as "no", or "nothing." Thinman10 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC).

A koan doesn't need to be "deep", it needs to startle. A disciple like Thinman, who expects "depth" from his koans, would need to be startled by ostensibly shallow ones. The "depth" then comes from your own startled state, not from the philosophical depth in the koan itself. After all "does a dog have Buddha-nature? -- No." isn't intrinsically deep either, it's the answer you would get from any materialist. The answer is only startling because it is given by a Mahayana Buddhist. The student is shocked because the master seems to throw out the central teaching of the entire tradition with a shrug, and this is supposed to get him musing on the semantics of the term "mu", fluctuating between "no", "doesn't exist" and "not applicable", and then confuse him about the nature of "existence" itself, and the relation of reality to semantics, etc.

Now for Jack Kerouac, writing in 1950s America, not 9th century China, answering "no" to the question of "does a dog have Buddha nature" wouldn't startle anyone, the asker would more likely just go "ok, thanks". Not good for a koan. The answer woof for Kerouac's reader may come much closer to the effect of a real koan than giving a sholarly explanation of the medieval situation and its implications. But I agree of course, that the "woof" is Kerouac's original koan, and not an adequate explanation of Zhaozhou's --dab (𒁳) 10:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Rational understanding

I'm genuinely curious and not trying to light any flames, but in the introduction to the article, we have " ... generally containing aspects that are inaccessible to rational understanding, yet may be accessible to intuition. A famous kōan is: "Two hands clap and there is a sound; what is the sound of one hand?"" Now there is a perfectly rational answer to this which I wrote, tongue-in-cheek, admittedly, but still a rational answer. It was promptly removed and I reinserted the answer with a weak pun added. But the question is (and this time I'm serious): Why is this easy teaser considered deep? Is it something that got lost in translation?

All the best and cheers 157.157.101.21 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Check out the article's section on interpretation:

The purpose of kōans is for a Zen practitioner to become aware of the difference between themselves, their mind, and their beliefs that influence how they see the world as an aspect of realizing their True nature. Paradoxes tend to arouse the mind for an extended duration as the mind goes around and around trying to resolve the paradox or kōan to an "answer". This is a lot like a dog chasing its tail and, while it's chasing, the mind makes itself more visible. Once a Zen practitioner becomes aware of their mind as an independent form, the kōan makes sense and the teaching point is realized [DAK]

The answer isn't the point, the journey the kōans sends you on and what you get out of that is. There's no real good translation in English, as far as I understand, so it's hard for me to understand exactly. If it was about the answer, someone would just say "nothing" or "if you've got really long fingers, some weird skin against-skin-sound." I must say, I like your answer, if only because it's interesting how one defines clapping, but it's not really appropriate for the question. Hope that helps somewhat, I must admit I do find these things rather unenlightening but, then again, I'm unenlightened. ~ Amory (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, very well responded. Yes, the answer isn't the point, I got that. I am also unenlightened myself. But for the spiritual journey to be meaningful, one needs a paradox (as far as I understand it), or as the article states, ... generally containing aspects that are inaccessible to rational understanding. Now this particular example has a rational explanation. I'm not saying all koans do, but this one does. The oft cited similar example of the tree falling in the woods with noone around to listen also has a rational explanation.
I freely admit that there are many instances where there is no particular interpretation. You buy a house, make some changes, then the roof needs to be fixed etc. At what point does the house cease to be the original? (Or the old joke about the carpenter: This is my favourite hammer. I've had it a long time and have had to change the handle thrice and the head twice. :-) A relevant koan might be found in the inflammatory issue of abortion. When does a foetus become a human being? But, to cut a long story short, this particular one does have a definite answer or, if one does not accept that, it is at least no paradox, not even if you make the unspoken assumption that the clapping has to be one hand against the other. All the best and cheers 157.157.101.21 (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Having thought about it, the nonsensical wrappings might vanish if you replace paradox with open to interpretation. Does that sound reasonable? Cheers 157.157.101.21 (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
A monk who could not give a suitable answer would often be slapped in the face. "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"...no response...SLAP! Andybutler (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Contemporary Koans

I'm sorry, but what exactly does this section add to the article? Is there any evidence that these anecdotes are actually used by any legitimate Zen Teachers as koans? I propoose we delete this useless and silly section. Jikaku (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

re Etymology and the evolving meaning... section

(clearing cobwebs) I've been meaning to add Fenyang Shanzhao (Fen-Yang Shan Chao; Fun'yō Zenshō, 947-1024, the fifth generation successor to Linji [Lin-chi, Rinzai]) to the subsection because the 3 sets of 100 cases that are part of the Fen Yang Lu (recorded in Taisho 47, in a section that CBETA.org lists as number 1992) were a key development that may (and the faithful believe) predate the 100 old cases of Xuedou (980-1052, whose collection, together with the later amendments of Yuanwu, form the Blue Cliff Record). The material below is mostly potential footnotes for a concise mention.

In a popular source, A Dictionary of Buddhism, (see here) Damian Keown asserts Fenyang "was the first to compile an anthology of kōans, many of which he composed himself." He's a scholar but I am not aware he's a specialist in medieval Chinese. More definitively, Zen Dust p356 calls the subset of the Fenyang-lu that contain 300 cases "of particular importance since the three collections of kōans became models for later Zen literary productions of a similar type" specifically referring to Fenyang collecting, composing, and commenting on cases. In Zen's Chinese Heritage p327 Fergusson writes "the formal collection and incorporation into practice of kōans, is traced to Fenyang. This emphasis on the use of kōans gave rise to their widespread collection...Well known examples of these books, such as the Blue Cliff Record and the Gateless Gate, became widely incorporated into Zen practice."

(Incidentally, in what could be a footnote for the kōan wiki's opening paragraph, on the following page 328 Ferguson remarks regarding Fenyang and later authors, "The writers did not try to directly explain what the public cases meant...their verses contained allegories and subtle information to evoke an intuitive or abstract appreciation and realization.")

More conservatively, in The Kōan p179 Schlūtter doesn't commit himself personally but names a source (the Chan-lin pao shūn) that indicates "the practice of gathering collections of kung-an commentaries began with the Lin-chi master Fen-yang". Victor Hori's mention of Fenyang on p70 of Zen Sand is even less definitive, referring to the Fenyang-lu as "one such early work", an early example of a collection of "old cases"; this is in a context in which Hori points out two pages earlier that regarding kōans "The actual date of birth...is uncertain".

I think it may be significant that two occurrences of the string for kung-an appear in the Fenyang lu. Eg browse here and search for 公案. I have an idea those occurrences are within the portion of the text that comprise the 300 cases. munge (talk) 05:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Languages in lede

Shouldn't the Korean be given in Hangul (or at least in both Hangul and romanization)? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Rational understanding requires definitions of terms

Don't these paradoxes go away when the questioner is required to define his/her terms? Examples:

(1) "Master, a falling tree causes oscillatory vibrations of the surrounding air whether or not someone is present to hear, so if we define sound as the oscillatory vibrations then yes, there is a sound, but if we define sound as the observer's experience then no, there is no sound when there is no observer."
(2) "Master, if we define chicken egg as an egg laid by a chicken then the chicken came before the chicken egg, but if we define chicken egg as an egg containing a chicken embryo then the chicken egg came before the chicken. In both cases, the first chicken was a mutation hatched from an egg laid by a closely related chicken-like species. Or, if we assume creation instead of evolution, then one was presumably created before the other, but the knowledge of which one was created first is lost to unrecorded history, and our lack of that knowledge is no more profound than our lack of knowledge of your great grandmother's 9th spoken word after her 3rd birthday."
(3) "Master, if we define clapping generally as a sound produced by one or more hands and involving at least one hand's palm, then the sound of one hand clapping can be heard on YouTube… it's the sound of fingers striking the palm, and when done well the fingers compress air against the palm, making the sound louder. On the other hand, if we define clapping narrowly as one palm striking another palm, then one hand clapping is simply a logical contradiction in terms, of which many can be easily constructed… for examples, the 4th side of a triangle, the letter between a and b, or the first element in an empty set." At which point, the student is entitled to slap the master's cheek with his palm, saying "Or is this what you meant?"

For me, the most interesting of these paradoxes concerns the question of identity & continuity of a hammer that had at least one part replaced, but it's interesting only because it's related to an important issue for which definition of terms does not provide a satisfactory resolution: Imagine a series of surgical operations that gradually replace small parts of the human brain with equivalent self-repairing artificial components. Would the surgeries make the patient immortal, or would they kill the patient and replace him with a copy? Is the series of surgeries equivalent to constructing an artificial copy of the entire brain in a copy of the body and then killing the original, or does the series provide a degree of continuity that avoids death and provides immortality? If the former, which one of the surgeries killed the patient? Can we conclude anything relevant from the fact that many of the atoms that comprise our brains are continually being replaced? The difference between immortality and surgically-induced early death seems huge, so we can expect that for many people the choice whether to undergo such surgeries would need to be based on something better than arbitrary definitions of terms.
SEppley (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The word "paradox" isn't used on the page at all anymore, which is probably for the best. Most koans I've encountered aren't paradoxes in the usual sense of the word. Pfly (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

I've started revising the Etymology section, which still needs polishing. We might want to delete the Foulk quote – gong does not mean "'magistrate' or 'judge'." The closest I found is gongzu 公祖 "(historical) term of respect for the local magistrate". Keahapana (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking up this part, 'mr. etymology' :) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

No criticism section? Really?

Koan's are possibly the asian faith equivilent to batshit insane rantings of tent dwelling incestuous desert nomads who think it's awesome to mutilate their cocks because their god said to. Please treat it with the same respect and neutrality it deserves accordingly, and reflect the millions upon millions of criticisms that have been raised about this nonsensical argumentum ad authoratum reply method of drug fucked gurus to their neophytes. 211.30.150.122 (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Five tons of flax.

Great - since there are "millions upon millions" of criticisms, it should be incredibly easy for you to find a few appropriate and valid references, and then you can create the "criticism" section whose absence you bemoan. Or you could just troll article comment sections. You know, whichever. Jikaku (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
I'd just offer if you're attached to koans, your reaction to the Truth (Note: the 'meaning' of a koan's content-of-words isn't relevant to the Truth the koan can reveal) that the statement (above) might reveal would make a fair koan for you as it would allow you the opportunity to watch how your mind reacts to the statement. Just a note, if you're not attached to koans, then there would be no palpable reaction to the statement (above)...unless of course you were attached to polite language, which is to say attached to curse words just in reverse, that is you push away from them. added by (DAK) Danielkaplan123 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 14 September 2012
Think among yourself. -(No, that is not a grammatical error) ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
"I must humbly and respectfully point out an error in my Master's writing: 'Think among yourself' is an incorrectly formed statement."
"Is it not?" was the Master's only response.
~Dialog from Self; ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Chung-feng Ming-pen

Quote

He had a concise and perhaps profound definition, which might be worthy of a quote-box or something?

“The koans do not represent the private opinion of a single man, but rather the highest principle ... that accords with the spiritual source, tallies with the mysterious meaning, destroys birth-and-death, and transcends the passions. It cannot be understood by logic it cannot be transmitted in words it cannot be explained in writing it cannot be measured by reason. It is like ... a great fire that consumes all who come near it.”

~Chung-feng Ming-pen

Sorry, I can't cite a reference off-hand; that essentially is a copy/paste [no-no!] from here: [1]
~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The quote comes from a book which is cited in "Zen Dust" by Miura and Sasaki: "Source: a Zen teaching, quoted in Miura and Sasaki 1966:5" Though "Zen Dust" is a famous publication, personally I wouldn't use this quote without offering a/the context. To me it seems to be a good example of de-contextualized Zen as popularized by D.T. Suzuki. Why did Chung-feng state it this way? Who was he responding to? Dumoulin gives a description of Chung-feng; so does Baroni. According to these sources, Chung-feng was influential on early Rinzai in Japan. He lived in a time when the picture of the Song as the "Golden Age of Zen" had been fully created. That's significant, when using this quote. More info on him can be found in "Chung-feng Ming-pen and Ch'an Buddhism in the Yuan" by Chun-fang Yu, in "Yuan thought: Chinese thought and religion in the Yuan" (see Buswell p369). Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
The quote is part of a longer text which is also included in "Sitting with koans" by JohnDaido Loori. The rest of the text is less cheesy (is that the correct word?)
Chung-feng also introduced the term "wild fox slobber"
Griffith Foulk does provide a context for the Chung-feng quote; Griffith Foulk mentions the comparison by Chung-feng of "the records of the teachings" with "government documents".p21 So the quote you propesed seems more like a 'poetic' utterance emphasising the importance and the impact of koans, than a definition of koans.
By the way, it's typical that the text in "Sitting with koans" omits the opening question: "Someone also asked: "Why is it that the [records] of the [teaching] devices and circumstances (chi-yuan) of the buddhas and patriarchs are commonly called kung-an?p21 Omitting this opening question is a subtle way of decontextualizing this text. It also shows, I think, why it is good that Wikipedia asks for secondary, reliable sources.
Joshua Jonathan (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Now that you've done the research, how about an article for Chung-feng Ming-pen? ;) ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding my original query about his quote; perhaps something like: ...in response to a question regarding the purpose of using the word 'koan'. But that would probably require a cite for that summation. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC) - (Which might indicate a lack of sufficient understanding on my part) ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems he also had a significant influence on calligraphy: "[His]...new style of calligraphy prompted innovative trends in Ming Dynasty China and transmitted current Chinese artistic developments to Japan where it had a major impact on Zen- and tea circles." - A Master of His Own:The Calligraphy of the Chan Abbot Zhongfeng Mingben (1262-1323) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding writing an article on Chung-feng Ming-pen: I had the same thought. kind of an obligation, isn't it? Here's a begiining Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Great start - thanks! ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the quote could be used in a section which stresses the weight Rinzai-Zen gives to koans. It could be seconded by a quote from Hakuin, where he compares koans to "wild foex slobber", a term which comes from Chung-ming, who also revitalized Chán in his times. Would be a nice subtle intertextuality, wouldn't it? But it should also contain a relativization (is that a correct word?), for example Muso on richi and kikan Dumoulin 2005-B, p.164-165. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 04:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

One reason that I like that quote is that it can serve as 'Koan in a nutshell' - for dummies like me. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Binomial hyphenation

Btw, the binomial hyphenation of the name seems to be preferred / more common; I hope you don't mind if I change it to that. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Umm, following WP:PINYIN, shouldn't his name be romanized as Zhongfeng Mingben? Keahapana (talk)
Your link seems to suggest such, unless there is a 'common usage' suggesting otherwise; in this case I have no idea. I would be tempted to use: Chung-feng Ming-pen (Zhongfeng Mingben; 中峰明本 ) - [Still no link] But this is outside my normal editing genre. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
So, Zhongfeng Mingben? Given Keahapana's experience in Chinese? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
There is another reference on WP where it is 'Zhongfeng Mingben (Chung-feng Ming-pen)'; next to last entry on table: List of National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents)). Using both might be useful for researchers. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
I already put both in the userdraft. Also create a redirect when the draft is ready for Wikipedia? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Zhongfang might need a redirect also; Google has quite a few hits for that spelling. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Kōan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Atrocious

If the point of this article was to make the reader conclude that the whole koan thing is just a large pile of bullshit, then it is very successful. Otherwise, the article is atrocious. There is *vastly* more explanation and insight here in the talk page than in the article itself. That, my friends, is a serious problem. Indeed, if one were to delete the entire article and just replace it with the below FAQ, that would be a significant improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.42.235 (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Koan/Archive_1&oldid=1182231159"