GENIUS FORUMS

Hakuin said:

"If you wish to test the validity of your own powers, you must first study the koan on the death of Nan-ch'uan.

A long time ago San-sheng had the head monk Hsiu go to the Zen Master Tsen of Ch'ang-sha and ask him: "What happened to Nan-ch'uan after he passes away?"
Ch'ang-sha replied: "When Shih-t'ou became a novice monk he was seen by the Sixth Patriarch."
Hsiu replied: "I didn't ask you about when Shih-t'ou became a novice monk; I asked you what happened to Nan-ch'uan after he passed away."
Ch'ang-sha replied: "If I were you I would let Nan-ch'uan worry about it himself."
Hsiu replied: "Even though you had a thousand-foot winter pine, there is no bamboo shoot to rise above its branches."
Ch'ang had nothing to say. Hsiu returned and told the story of his conversation to San-sheng. San-sheng unconsciously stuck out his tongue [in surprise] and said: "He has surpassed Lin-chi by seven paces."

If you are able to understand and make clear these words, then I will acknowledge that you have a certain degree of responsiveness to the teachings. Why is this so? If you speak to yourself while no one is around, you behave as meanly as a rat. What can anyone possibly prove [about your understanding]? "

this has baffled me for many years, this koan.

does anyone here understand this koan, and understand why Hakuin found it so valuable as a means for measuring spiritual prowess?

Hakuin said:

"If you wish to test the validity of your own powers, you must first study the koan on the death of Nan-ch'uan.

A long time ago San-sheng had the head monk Hsiu go to the Zen Master Tsen of Ch'ang-sha and ask him: "What happened to Nan-ch'uan after he passes away?"
Ch'ang-sha replied: "When Shih-t'ou became a novice monk he was seen by the Sixth Patriarch."

What happens to Nan-ch'uan at his passing away is essentially no different to what happens to Shih-t'ou when he becomes a novice monk and gets seen by the Sixth Patriarch. The same movement of Reality occurs, the same process of causal change.

Hsiu replied: "I didn't ask you about when Shih-t'ou became a novice monk; I asked you what happened to Nan-ch'uan after he passed away."
replied: "If I were you I would let Nan-ch'uan worry about it himself."

Hsui's question is fundamentally deluded.

Hsiu replied: "Even though you had a thousand-foot winter pine, there is no bamboo shoot to rise above its branches."

This looks like a reference to something within Japanese culture, which I know nothing about. It may mean: Your wisdom may be well-established and sturdy, but there is no fresh insight coming through. You're stagnating.

Ch'ang had nothing to say.

Ch'ang is indicating that his wisdom is, in fact, complete.

Hsiu returned and told the story of his conversation to San-sheng. San-sheng unconsciously stuck out his tongue [in surprise] and said: "He has surpassed Lin-chi by seven paces."

Ch'ang has authentic insight. Hsiu doesn't yet understand.

does anyone here understand this koan, and understand why Hakuin found it so valuable as a means for measuring spiritual prowess?

I don't think it is all that important. The bit about bamboo might be important, but unless one has a sufficient understanding of Japanese culture, there is no way of finding out.

-

This is the first I have seen this koan, and I am not familiar with the traditions, so I had to look up the key components - but I will give you my first impression.

When Lin-chi was a young monk, at first he went unnoticed as he did his work well, did not draw attention to himself, and never had questions for the master. The head monk Mu-Chou was impressed with his good work, and wanted him to get noticed, so he told him to go ask the Master Huang Po Si-Yin what was the fundamental principle of Buddhism. The Master responded by striking him with a 6 foot pole. Lin-chi repeated the question twice more, and each time was struck with the 6 foot pole.

Lin-chi decided the monestary was not for him and went to leave, but the Master told him not to go far, and sent him to Master Ta Yu to teach him what he needed to know. Master Ta Yu told Lin-chi that Master Huang Po had treated him as his own grandmother, and asked why Lin-chi came to Ta Yu with a to speak of faults that were Lin-chi's. Lin Chi then understood.

When Lin-Chi became a Master, his method of teaching was to strike the pupil on the part of the body that represented where Lin-chi saw that the student had a blockage to his understanding.

Remember that in this koan, San-sheng (I could not find a good reference for any of these three people) asked Hsiu to go to Master Tsen with a question - much as Lin-chi was sent with a question.

Nan-ch'uan was the one who found 2 monks arguing and said if either would speak, he would not slay the cat. Neither spoke, so Nan-ch'uan killed the cat.

It is possible that the question specifically pertaining to his death may have been meant to subtly ask if what he did with the cat had anything to do with what happened on his own death.

Shih-t'ou met the Sixth Patriarch by chance when Shih-t'ou was 12. The Sixth Patriarch liked him and Shih-t'ou became a novice monk at that time. The Sixth Patriarch only lived 3 more years, and when he was dying, Shih-t'ou asked him where he should go. The Sixth Patriarch gave him direction which was misunderstood - as where he was sent sounded identical to "contemplation." Another monk realized what was going on and roused him from his contemplation to go see another person, but once there, more language confusion arose.

This initial response dually indicated the confusion of the question (karma vs the nature of samsara) and the true meaning of the monk's arriving to ask the question. Because the monk did not ask a clear question, he did not get a clear response.

I notice you wrote "passed" at one point and "passes" at another, so I am unclear if he had already passed at the moment the question was asked (and that makes a difference in the translation). The second response of suggesting that he let Nan-ch'uan worry about it himself means to me that, if alive, it is no one's concern but Nan-ch'uan's, and if already passed, it was sarcasm of irrelevancy.

I'll take a guess at the pine/bamboo statement, although I feel it is irrelevant. I think it was an attempt to brown-nose an answer out of the Master. Bamboo can only grow 25' - 70' tall, depending on the kind - so when he was telling the Master he had a thousand foot pine tree, he was complimenting his wisdom, and suggesting that he was a lowly bamboo. Being submissive to a superior is important in Chinese tradition, so this may have been a bow to that tradition as well. Nothing was said, so he took leave.

Lin-chi gave the teachings similar to the teachings he learned from, but in this koan, the Master gave the teaching that directly reflected the lack of understanding. It seems reasonable to me that a tailored approach to the presenting student would be seven paces more effective than just using the teaching that was effective on the teacher.
.

10gaybirds wrote:and understand why Hakuin found it so valuable as a means for measuring spiritual prowess?

This, to me, was the more difficult question.

There were three examples of the student being given an answer by the master, but the student not understanding the answer. The understanding had to be prompted by another source. The answer is not always in the answer, and the understanding is the critical element... but I don't think that was the whole of what he found significant.

Why is this so? If you speak to yourself while no one is around, you behave as meanly as a rat.

"Meanly" does not just mean "not very nice" is can also mean "common, lowly" and that seems a more fitting descriptor of a rat.

When you speak to yourself, you always know what you are saying...

What can anyone possibly prove [about your understanding]?

When communicating with others, it is important to know that they may not understand you, that they may not be able to understand you, and how to communicate to them so they will understand - even if that means that the communication must come from another source. The whole problem does not even come up when you are speaking with yourself, so no one has to prove their communication skills with themselves.

If you wish to test the validity of your own powers, you must first study the koan on the death of Nan-ch'uan.

I think you were reading too much significance into this part when you interpreted it in such a way as to get the following question:

why Hakuin found it so valuable as a means for measuring spiritual prowess?

I don't think it pointed to that at all - it is not a koan about testing your spiritual prowess, rather it is merely a koan about knowing how much you personally have the ability (power) to communicate.
.

David Quinn wrote:

10gaybirds wrote:does anyone here understand this koan, and understand why Hakuin found it so valuable as a means for measuring spiritual prowess?

I don't think it is all that important. The bit about bamboo might be important, but unless one has a sufficient understanding of Japanese culture, there is no way of finding out.

So how does one test the validity of one's own powers?

Matt Gregory wrote:So how does one test the validity of one's own powers?

If you wish to test the validity of your own powers, you must first study the koan on the death of Nan-ch'uan.

This is given as two steps. Step one is understanding the koan, step two is testing the validity of your powers.

The best test is life itself, and accuratly observing the results. It is easier to see limits in others than in yourself, so it is good practice to see the limits of others. Once you see that even a Master has limits to his causality, then it is easier to accept that there are limits to yours as well.

If you are able to understand and make clear these words, then I will acknowledge that you have a certain degree of responsiveness to the teachings.

Although the koan is a test of responsiveness to teachings in a way, it just tests one's history of assimilating knowledge (all those referants) and drawing an accurate conclusion from them.

"If you wish to test the validity of your own powers, you must first study the koan on the death of Nan-ch'uan.

A long time ago San-sheng had the head monk Hsiu go to the Zen Master Tsen of Ch'ang-sha and ask him: "What happened to Nan-ch'uan after he passes away?"

Ch'ang-sha replied: "When Shih-t'ou became a novice monk he was seen by the Sixth Patriarch."

Hsiu replied: "I didn't ask you about when Shih-t'ou became a novice monk; I asked you what happened to Nan-ch'uan after he passed away."

Ch'ang-sha replied: "If I were you I would let Nan-ch'uan worry about it himself."

Hsiu replied: "Even though you had a thousand-foot winter pine, there is no bamboo shoot to rise above its branches."

Ch'ang had nothing to say.

Hsiu returned and told the story of his conversation to San-sheng. San-sheng unconsciously stuck out his tongue [in surprise] and said: "He has surpassed Lin-chi by seven paces."

If you are able to understand and make clear these words, then I will acknowledge that you have a certain degree of responsiveness to the teachings. Why is this so? If you speak to yourself while no one is around, you behave as meanly as a rat. What can anyone possibly prove [about your understanding]? "

Hmm. If I were to put on the Zen hat just for fun, I'd have to say he was asking a nonsense question - nothing "happens" to anyone after they pass away; or if we were to suppose that anything does, it is not knowable to us and thus not worth asking about ("let him worry about it himself"). Additionally, from a certain perspective, nothing could possibly happen to anyone in any case - what can happen to Nature? There is nothing to be said to the question besides a "chop wood, carry water" sort of answer which would seem to have nothing to do with the question, or no response at all.

The question is no more (or less) answerable than "does the dog have Buddha-nature," which gets the reply "Mu." Zen is big on highlighting the limits of logic and language.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:The best test is life itself, and accuratly observing the results. It is easier to see limits in others than in yourself, so it is good practice to see the limits of others. Once you see that even a Master has limits to his causality, then it is easier to accept that there are limits to yours as well.

But I mean one's spiritual powers, how is one to test those? Obviously, they can't be observed.

Matt,

I guess I don't understand what you mean by spiritual powers.

The ability to cure others by the laying-on of hands.

Philosophaster wrote:The ability to cure others by the laying-on of hands.

Then stick your hands on sick people, and tally up your percentage of how many of them get better right away.

I don't think that's what Hakuin meant. By "powers," he likely means powers of understanding and discernment, and that sort of thing. I haven't heard much about a tradition of laying on hands in Zen. I think one has to go to Benny Hinn or possibly Sidarthur Prospero for that.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I guess I don't understand what you mean by spiritual powers.

The ability to distinguish between what's true and false about reality. Obviously, it can't be observed.

Philosophaster wrote:The ability to cure others by the laying-on of hands.

You need to reach at least 8th level for that.

Unidian wrote:

Hmm. If I were to put on the Zen hat just for fun, I'd have to say he was asking a nonsense question - nothing "happens" to anyone after they pass away; or if we were to suppose that anything does, it is not knowable to us and thus not worth asking about ("let him worry about it himself"). Additionally, from a certain perspective, nothing could possibly happen to anyone in any case - what can happen to Nature? There is nothing to be said to the question besides a "chop wood, carry water" sort of answer which would seem to have nothing to do with the question, or no response at all.

The question is no more (or less) answerable than "does the dog have Buddha-nature," which gets the reply "Mu." Zen is big on highlighting the limits of logic and language.

You'd have a big bruise on the side of your head if you gave such a lazy, formulaic answer. A Zen Master with any teeth would snarl at such a response and tell you to go away and meditate on the koan for another 5 years.

Talk about living in a dreamworld.

-

Matt wrote:

10GB: does anyone here understand this koan, and understand why Hakuin found it so valuable as a means for measuring spiritual prowess?

DQ: I don't think it is all that important. The bit about bamboo might be important, but unless one has a sufficient understanding of Japanese culture, there is no way of finding out.

M: So how does one test the validity of one's own powers?

By examining yourself as a whole package - how aware you are in each moment of the nature of Reality, how much freedom you experience, how you respond to various situations, how much expertise you have in thinking and talking about spiritual matters, how much consistency your life has with the truth, how willing you are to confront the falseness in the world, how willing you are to suffer for the truth, etc.

-

David-Tzu thundered:

You'd have a big bruise on the side of your head if you gave such a lazy, formulaic answer. A Zen Master with any teeth would snarl at such a response and tell you to go away and meditate on the koan for another 5 years.

Talk about living in a dreamworld.

Yeah, I expected that kind of response from you, O Venerable Master. Can't have anybody around here getting uppity by addressing a koan. I will consider myself properly smacked with the Dharma-stick. 5 years penance it is!

More comic relief, Quinn-style... :)

I notice you didn't actually address it yourself, though. What's the matter, ego won't let you take the chance of someone saying you didn't get it (and therefore have no understanding according to Hakuin)?

I addressed it in the second post of this thread.

-

Oh, you did actually address it. My bad, somehow I missed that post. Let's look at your answer.

What happens to Nan-ch'uan at his passing away is essentially no different to what happens to Shih-t'ou when he becomes a novice monk and gets seen by the Sixth Patriarch. The same movement of Reality occurs, the same process of causal change.

And you called my response "formulaic?" If you think I'd get a big bruise and 5 years penance for what I said, I'd like to see what would happen to you if you offered any legitimate Zen master this self-satisfied pronouncement. I think the stick would break over your head.

Talk about "finding the correct world..."

Zen Master Seung Sahn (a real Zen Master) said:

In this world, becoming tight is just tight, becoming loose is just loose. If we read the Heart Sutra, we finally come to Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi, unexcelled supreme enlightenment. This is the area where tightening is just tightening, loosening is just loosening. First I talked about opposites world. Here everything is very distinct—becoming tight, becoming loose—very clear. Then I talked about nirvana world: no tight, no loose. Then I talked about truth world: tight is tight, loose is loose. Of these three worlds, which one is the real world? Form is emptiness, emptiness is form; is that world the correct world? No form, no emptiness—nirvana world; is that the correct world? Form is form, emptiness is emptiness; is that the correct world? If somebody says that they found the correct world, this stick will hit them thirty times. If they cannot find the correct world, this stick will also hit them thirty times. Why is that?

KATZ!

Go meditate on that until you're fit to mop Seung Sahn's floor without the entire room bursting into uncontrollable laughter.

Matt Gregory wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:I guess I don't understand what you mean by spiritual powers.

The ability to distinguish between what's true and false about reality. Obviously, it can't be observed.

To an extent, it can - especially with the smaller realities. When we practice logical induction and logical deduction on the smaller realities, we can observe the effects of causality. At that level we can get good with logic, and work our way up to bigger realities. The logic stays the same, it is just that more has to be taken into account to get specific observable results. In the mid-size truths, a pattern starts to emerge about what is core to all of it. The pattern is so obvious that it is just seen, and the causality is still in the observable realm. Once the logic is flawless, there will be no mistakes in the core either in the observable or unobservable realms.

I understand the importance of a test to tell if one is truly enlightened or truly delusional, as both will be equally sure they are right - and even more important to those who are somewhere mid-ladder, as often those who are deluded will actually be sure of themselves, and those on the right path can either be appropriately confident or unsure if they are even on the path at all.

It is mostly true that only an enlightened person can recognize another enlightened person - meaning that some people are aware enough to recognize if someone is further along the path than they are but most are more likely to not recognize it (which can result in anything from not noticing the person at all to ridiculing the person).

People can usually tell if a person is at least as far along the path as they are, so how I would take the saying is to only accept criticism from those who you recognize (after looking) as at least as far along the path as you are. It is important to assess your assessor.

Assessing can be difficult as some people can be advanced in some areas and not advanced in others. It is fine to take an assessment in an area where someone is strong, and dismiss parts of the assessment from areas where you assess that the assessor is weak. Even this is not unilateral. Any complete fool could possibly drop a diamond of insight.

To avoid the danger of only believing "yes men" you have to be thoroughly honest with yourself about both your assessment of yourself and your assessment of your assessors. If you can not be honest with yourself, the effects will be observable all the way back in the smaller realities - so it is not a hidden danger.

Now, now, gentlemen. Sages don't behave like this!

Oh wait! There's one now. Let's hide in the bushes and observe...

Watchful, like a man crossing a winter stream.
Alert, like a man aware of danger.
Courteous, like a visiting guest.
Yielding, like ice about to melt.
Simple, like an uncarved block of wood.
Hollow, like a cave.
Opaque, like a muddy pool.

Well, I'm not trying to be a "sage" or anything of the sort (having tossed all of that out), but you do have a point. I am literally a guest here and probably should not wave the Zen-stick around so enthusiastically. I like to have a bit of fun, but I should be "courteous" enough to remember that things like "sagehood" and "wisdom" are taken quite seriously here.

The only reason this koan, indeed all koans, irritate me is that I have a bit of an attachment to riddles. Otherwise I'd just ignore them completely, they kind of remind me of the word games that European nobility used to play, or even the typical asian love of hidden meaning, or academic philosophy where cogniotive riddles must be tied up.

Why bother with shit that can be interpreted any which way. If a monk hit me I'd hit him back - he could have some karma too.

Unidian wrote:

Zen story: A long time ago San-sheng had the head monk Hsiu go to the Zen Master Tsen of Ch'ang-sha and ask him: "What happened to Nan-ch'uan after he passes away?"
Ch'ang-sha replied: "When Shih-t'ou became a novice monk he was seen by the Sixth Patriarch."

DQ: What happens to Nan-ch'uan at his passing away is essentially no different to what happens to Shih-t'ou when he becomes a novice monk and gets seen by the Sixth Patriarch. The same movement of Reality occurs, the same process of causal change.

U: And you called my response "formulaic?" If you think I'd get a big bruise and 5 years penance for what I said, I'd like to see what would happen to you if you offered any legitimate Zen master this self-satisfied pronouncement. I think the stick would break over your head.

I'm not sure how I would respond if I was physically in that situation. It would depend on what I thought of the "Zen Master" before me, and whether I was in the mood for playing those sorts of Zennish games. However, 10gaybirds wasn't asking for more Zennish game-playing. He was looking for clarification of what the Zen story meant.

My response above deals specifically with the dialogue in question. Even though these Zen stories and dialogues are hard to understand and often seem opaque, it shouldn't be thought that they are simply exercises in nonsense. They are deliberately designed with a specific purpose in mind, usually to test people's understanding of Reality and their various attachments to things, but also to open up their minds to new understanding. In the case above, San-sheng is testing Hsiu's his emotional attachment to the self, which Hsui subsequently fails.

Hsui is still too attached to his self and consequently cannot see that death occurs in each moment.

-

David Quinn wrote:Hsui is still too attached to his self and consequently cannot see that death occurs in each moment.

A long time ago San-sheng had the head monk Hsiu go to the Zen Master Tsen of Ch'ang-sha and ask him: "What happened to Nan-ch'uan after he passes away?"

I assume since San-sheng had the head monk go ask the question, San-sheng was someone who outranked a head monk. I'm not so sure that the question had anything to do with anything Hsui did or did not see.

The way I see it, the whole exercise was for Hsui's benefit. San-sheng recognized the limitations of Hsui's understanding and directed him to Ch'ang for further stimulation and development.

If San-sheng wanted to find out about Ch'ang's level of attainment, it is more likely he would have visited Ch'ang himself.

-