GENIUS FORUMS

I think San-sheng's lesson was more about attachment to the teacher than attachment to oneself.

David Quinn wrote: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.

You're right, and that wasn't exactly what I meant. I should have said "I'm not so sure that the question had anything to do with anything Hsui did or did not see regarding attachment to his self and consequently cannot see that death occurs in each moment." I agree that he was sent for his own education, not just as an errand boy.

Matt Gregory wrote:I think San-sheng's lesson was more about attachment to the teacher than attachment to oneself.

That would make sense - I just didn't have any more information about the context of the koan (actually, I'm not even sure that koans come in contexts...) and just on the information given, I can't say that for a fact. I agree that would be another possible reason to send Hsui on that journey. The particular question could have been a reflection of the topic Hsui knew best, and so it was just a teaching tool of teaching tools.

I just don't see enough information to be sure that the question had anything to do with actually teaching the exact point of attachment to life, or the exact point of attachment to a particular teacher, or just out for the opportunity to see things taught in a different way, even if there was no attachment (except maybe to a particular way of learning things).

As I said before, I'm just not so sure. There isn't really enough information to be sure of that point, and seeing meaning where there is none is just as delusional as not seeing meaning at all.

Nan Ch'uan once said, "Where knowledge cannot reach, just don't speak of it; if you speak of it, then horns will grow on your head. Even if you call it 'thus', already it has changed. You should just go work among different kinds of beings."

When Nan Ch'uan was ailing, someone asked, "Master, after you die, where will you go?" Ch'uan said, "I'll be a water buffalo at the house of the patron down the mountain." His questioner said, "I want to accompany you, master, but can I?" Ch'uan said, "If you follow me, come with a blade of grass in your mouth."

Elizabeth,

Yeah they are highly contextual, that's why people like us (who are not into the Zen Buddhism tradition) studying koans is little more than a guessing game. Kind of interesting, though.

Case #65

An outsider asked the Buddha, "I do not ask about the spoken or the unspoken." The World Honored One remained silent. The outsider sighed in admiration and said, "The World Honored One's great kindness and great compassion have opened up my clouds of illusion and let me gain entry."

After the outsider had left, Ananda asked the Buddha, "What did the outsider realize, that he said he had gained entry?" The Buddha said, "Like a good horse, he goes as soon as he sees the shadow of the whip."

Matt Gregory wrote:An outsider asked the Buddha, "I do not ask about the spoken or the unspoken." The World Honored One remained silent. The outsider sighed in admiration and said, "The World Honored One's great kindness and great compassion have opened up my clouds of illusion and let me gain entry."

After the outsider had left, Ananda asked the Buddha, "What did the outsider realize, that he said he had gained entry?" The Buddha said, "Like a good horse, he goes as soon as he sees the shadow of the whip."

The outsider saw nothing and didn't want to see anything. He just wanted an ego boost.

Then why did the Buddha call him a good horse instead of just a horse or a bad horse?

A good horse goes as soon as he sees the shadow of the whip because he knows if he does not, he will get hit with the whip (or just knows now is the time to go). Most horses you have to prod to some extent to get them to go. A bad horse might, for example, wander off to eat the grass and just buck if you whip it.

The guy saw the shadow of the whip - meaning he knew if he hung out for too long, the Buddha would say something and shatter his fantasy of having spoken to the Buddha and not been chastized or had his words corrected, so he high-tailed it out of there before the Buddha had a chance to speak (to crack the whip).

What makes you so sure that the outsider was lying about gaining entry?

Mostly, I am so sure just out of interpretation of the Buddha's statement. As back-up though:

"I do not ask about the spoken or the unspoken."

Okay, picture yourself a Master. How do you respond to that one? Remember you are picturing yourself as a Master, so just any wise-crack won't do, no matter how much you might want to respond with "So WTF are you doing here?" At that point, he was telling the truth - he wasn't asking a thing, but he was subtly asking for conferment of enlightenment. I have to give the guy credit for coming up with something that would cause Buddha a bit of a pause before being smacked with a zen stick or whatever so that he could get away with his scheme. Silence can be taken as agreement (however that is not always the case, for example this one). After that he just played out his fantasy with kind of an obvious line.
.

Well, it's a pretty well known fact that enlightenment can't be conferred. It certainly wouldn't take a koan to communicate that type of teaching. Koans are usually trying to express the ultimate principle of Zen, and it's usually understood that the student in the koan awakens at the end.

Matt Gregory wrote:Well, it's a pretty well known fact that enlightenment can't be conferred.

Yes, but this was an outsider who only wanted the title and the kudos (that which would boost his ego). As I said, all he really wanted was an ego boost, but to an outsider, going to the Buddha and having a certain type of interaction results in both enlightenment occurring and having some kind of external confirmation of that can be mistaken for conferment of enlightenment.

Matt Gregory wrote:It certainly wouldn't take a koan to communicate that type of teaching.

So what kind of teaching do you think would be most appropriate to illustrate the lengths someone will go to in order to play games with the world to support their delusions rather than learn about Reality?

Matt Gregory wrote:Koans are usually trying to express the ultimate principle of Zen, and it's usually understood that the student in the koan awakens at the end.

Ananda was the student, the other guy was just the outsider. After the student awakens, no more needs to be said in the koan - Ananda's question and Buddha's response was the meat of the koan, which is why that came at the end. I suppose that if the format had to be as you said, it would have been easier to see if they had put "Ananda was awakened" at the end, but maybe koans were not written to be that easy. Besides, I thought koans were supposed to include a paradox - this one being that one man essentially declared that he was awakened , and as a result, andother man actually was awakened.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Matt: Well, it's a pretty well known fact that enlightenment can't be conferred.

Elizabeth: Yes, but this was an outsider who only wanted the title and the kudos (that which would boost his ego). As I said, all he really wanted was an ego boost, but to an outsider, going to the Buddha and having a certain type of interaction results in both enlightenment occurring and having some kind of external confirmation of that can be mistaken for conferment of enlightenment.

Well, I see what you're saying, but that's not it. Everybody is being honest here. The Buddha really did give a response and the guy really did become awakened.

Matt: It certainly wouldn't take a koan to communicate that type of teaching.

Elizabeth: So what kind of teaching do you think would be most appropriate to illustrate the lengths someone will go to in order to play games with the world to support their delusions rather than learn about Reality?

People like this would just be asked to leave the monastery. They don't try to teach insincere people, as teaching people who are sincere is hard enough. Koans are usually personally given by a master to students who have proven themselves.

Matt: Koans are usually trying to express the ultimate principle of Zen, and it's usually understood that the student in the koan awakens at the end.

Elizabeth: Ananda was the student, the other guy was just the outsider. After the student awakens, no more needs to be said in the koan - Ananda's question and Buddha's response was the meat of the koan, which is why that came at the end. I suppose that if the format had to be as you said, it would have been easier to see if they had put "Ananda was awakened" at the end, but maybe koans were not written to be that easy.

It's just part of the tradition that they are to be read that way. Koans were design to be simple and straightforward. The difficulty lies in the subtlety of the point it's trying to get across.

Elizabeth: Besides, I thought koans were supposed to include a paradox - this one being that one man essentially declared that he was awakened , and as a result, andother man actually was awakened.

The paradox is in the Buddha's response. "What is the shadow of the whip?" is the basic problem that it poses.

Matt Gregory wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Matt: Well, it's a pretty well known fact that enlightenment can't be conferred.

Elizabeth: Yes, but this was an outsider who only wanted the title and the kudos (that which would boost his ego). As I said, all he really wanted was an ego boost, but to an outsider, going to the Buddha and having a certain type of interaction results in both enlightenment occurring and having some kind of external confirmation of that can be mistaken for conferment of enlightenment.

Well, I see what you're saying, but that's not it. Everybody is being honest here. The Buddha really did give a response and the guy really did become awakened.

Based on what? I see that it said "case # 65" so what did the book say the answer was?
.

It doesn't give one. Koans point to direct understanding, so you have to figure it out yourself.

Matt Gregory wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Matt: Well, it's a pretty well known fact that enlightenment can't be conferred.

Elizabeth: Yes, but this was an outsider who only wanted the title and the kudos (that which would boost his ego). As I said, all he really wanted was an ego boost, but to an outsider, going to the Buddha and having a certain type of interaction results in both enlightenment occurring and having some kind of external confirmation of that can be mistaken for conferment of enlightenment.

Well, I see what you're saying, but that's not it. Everybody is being honest here. The Buddha really did give a response and the guy really did become awakened.

Okay on the "no answer in the book" - but you sound pretty sure of yourself. I gave you what I saw and why I saw it that way - you gave me... well, it had to be only part of what you saw, and none of why you saw it that way. What is the rest of what you see, and why do you see it that way?

I'm just going by the story and what I know of the purpose of these stories. There is nothing in the story to indicate the guy was being dishonest. His actions were in perfect accordance with his words. He came, got the teaching, thanked the Buddha and left.

As for the second part, the Buddha said, "Like a good horse, he goes as soon as he sees the shadow of the whip." By "good horse" he was saying that the guy was well trained in spiritual discipline. By "goes" he meant he had an insight, which he arrived at himself through his own will. By "shadow of the whip" the Buddha means his response, his just sitting there. I presume the "whip" is the meaning of it, which caused the outsider to "go".

That's what I see in it.

The Buddha was able to show the man his own mind. Due in large part to the man's respect.

Matt wrote:I'm just going by the story and what I know of the purpose of these stories.

So why do you suppose the koan did not end with the outsider being awakened?

Matt wrote:As for the second part, the Buddha said, "Like a good horse, he goes as soon as he sees the shadow of the whip." By "good horse" he was saying that the guy was well trained in spiritual discipline. By "goes" he meant he had an insight, which he arrived at himself through his own will. By "shadow of the whip" the Buddha means his response, his just sitting there. I presume the "whip" is the meaning of it, which caused the outsider to "go".

That would be a consistent and logical interpretation that would go along with your preconceived notion of what the koan was supposed to teach, but its mere inclusion in the koan just seems a little too trite and repetative to be the actual answer to me.

Matt wrote:There is nothing in the story to indicate the guy was being dishonest.

There was a very slight inconsistency - Why did he go to see the Buddha if he did not ask about the seen or the unseen?

It could be that by describing himself as “the whip”, Buddha may be pointing out the “outsider’s” passive nature. We are told that the outsider “sighed in admiration” after Buddha responded by being silent to his idea about the Infinite. Yet the outsider presented his idea to the Buddha not as a question, but as a statement - indicating that he already considered his idea complete. But he still came to Buddha looking for reassurance. So even though the outsider considered himself to be a free creature, possessing a mind of his own; he was nevertheless found out to be just another domesticated animal - “a good horse” – needing others to set boundaries for him.

.

If the Buddha described himself as the whip, then what do you suppose the shadow was?

I agree about the domesticated animal part - he was not a free thinker.

Steven Coyle wrote:The Buddha was able to show the man his own mind. Due in large part to the man's respect.

In a manner of speaking, sure. But the Buddha really just caused the guy to have faith in himself. I think that's what this koan is about.

Faith in himself, faith in his mind.

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Matt wrote:I'm just going by the story and what I know of the purpose of these stories.

So why do you suppose the koan did not end with the outsider being awakened?

Because he was already awakened.

Matt wrote:As for the second part, the Buddha said, "Like a good horse, he goes as soon as he sees the shadow of the whip." By "good horse" he was saying that the guy was well trained in spiritual discipline. By "goes" he meant he had an insight, which he arrived at himself through his own will. By "shadow of the whip" the Buddha means his response, his just sitting there. I presume the "whip" is the meaning of it, which caused the outsider to "go".

That would be a consistent and logical interpretation that would go along with your preconceived notion of what the koan was supposed to teach, but its mere inclusion in the koan just seems a little too trite and repetative to be the actual answer to me.

I could be wrong.

Matt wrote:There is nothing in the story to indicate the guy was being dishonest.

There was a very slight inconsistency - Why did he go to see the Buddha if he did not ask about the seen or the unseen?

He was asking for clarification of the ultimate principle of Buddhism. Neither speech nor silence is sufficient to communicate it.

Matt Gregory wrote:

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:

Matt wrote:I'm just going by the story and what I know of the purpose of these stories.

So why do you suppose the koan did not end with the outsider being awakened?

Because he was already awakened.

If he was already awakened, he would not have had to see the Buddha.