Zen Language

[Queequeg]

The forms and conventions are all neo-confucian, and indeed, Japan, by the time we think of the "Zen Arts" coming into play had ceased being a "Buddhist" country and had adopted Neo-confucianism as the main intellectual culture, because it served better to bolster the military and the ruling class.

I don't necessarily disagree, but could you tease this out a little more for my edification?

[Astus]

On a related note, what is the sort of cultural history of Zen poetry involving depictions of the natural world?

Perhaps: Shanshui poetry.

[seeker242]

Zen is basically a literary tradition and a high level of literacy is necessary for understanding the meaning of Zen."
(Jiang Wu: Leaving for the Rising Sun, p 34)

Did the 6th patriarch have a high level of literacy? If not, then that essentially proves that statement to be false, does it not?

[Meido]

Anyway, by my understanding Koans *are* thinking, they are just using thinking to exhaust itself. By definition, any practice that is a question in language starts out as "thinking"..wherever it ends up.

I get what you're saying here, but would want to emphasize that the actual method to kufu - grapple with, or work on - a koan, as taken up in Rinzai practice, really involves no analyzing of the words of the text. That is, one has to engage with the words of the koan or commentaries, and then present some demonstration of understanding which of course could use words, but the actual practice giving rise to that understanding is not a textual analysis or attempt to puzzle out the words. This is also related to the manner in which the body is used. Basically, it is a kind of samadhi practice taking words and anecdotes as a jumping off point in order to enter experientially into the state of the worthies who figure in the anecdotes.

Naturally this is not the only way in which koan texts can be used. But it is a way in which they are practice documents. The introduction to Hori's book Zen Sand which Astus mentioned earlier has one of the best, concise explanations of koan practice and its function which I've seen anywhere.

~ Meido

[Astus]

Did the 6th patriarch have a high level of literacy? If not, then that essentially proves that statement to be false, does it not?

The Platform Sutra is a literary product. In fact, as we can see from the Dunhuang version, it was used as the very emblem and source of transmission. As for Huineng's biography, it is good fiction.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Anyway, by my understanding Koans *are* thinking, they are just using thinking to exhaust itself. By definition, any practice that is a question in language starts out as "thinking"..wherever it ends up.

I get what you're saying here, but would want to emphasize that the actual method to kufu - grapple with, or work on - a koan, as taken up in Rinzai practice, really involves no analyzing of the words of the text. That is, one has to engage with the words of the koan or commentaries, and then present some demonstration of understanding which of course could use words, but the actual practice giving rise to that understanding is not a textual analysis or attempt to puzzle out the words. This is also related to the manner in which the body is used. Basically, it is a kind of samadhi practice taking words and anecdotes as a jumping off point in order to enter experientially into the state of the worthies who figure in the anecdotes.

Naturally this is not the only way in which koan texts can be used. But it is a way in which they are practice documents. The introduction to Hori's book Zen Sand which Astus mentioned earlier has one of the best, concise explanations of koan practice and its function which I've seen anywhere.

~ Meido

Thanks Meido, I didn't realize this.

but the actual practice giving rise to that understanding is not a textual analysis or attempt to puzzle out the words.

I didn't mean so much puzzle out the words to try finding an answer, I meant more that as a "puzzle" there is no actual solution, so they naturally exhaust the search for a solution with concepts. That was always my understanding, but the Zen I was involved with had no koan instruction, so it is just an assumption admittedly.

Are you saying here that they simply serve as objects for samadhi, and their linguistic content is unimportant, or something else?

[Meido]

I didn't mean so much puzzle out the words to try finding an answer, I meant more that as a "puzzle" there is no actual solution, so they naturally exhaust the search for a solution with concepts. That was always my understanding, but the Zen I was involved with had no koan instruction, so it is just an assumption admittedly.

Are you saying here that they simply serve as objects for samadhi, and their linguistic content is unimportant, or something else?

Well, but there is a solution, and they are not puzzles are containers of anything intentionally hidden. The solution is not any fixed "answer", but again simply to experience the state which is revealed in the koan. If that is done, any answer presented could be "correct", and the linguistic content served its purpose. This is especially revealed by the fact that having a sudden deepening of realization will sometimes allow one to see through several, or many, koan all at once.

The only thing that makes koan unclear or seem puzzling is our own delusion. Even if our conceptual understanding is fine, and even if we have recognized our nature, we still generally lack the free and seamless functioning of that recognition 24/7. So koan are nice tests to revisit, prod and develop that.

Samadhi is basically the field within which Zen cultivation takes place. Zen methods - including the use of texts, language, etc. - have at least three different purposes (sometimes simultaneous): to remove obstructions to recognizing one's nature, to directly point it out, or to clarify and embody that recognition. So we could talk about koan practice from these standpoints.

For example, taking up the wato of Joshu's Mu does not at all involve pondering why - from the standpoint of Buddha-nature theory - Joshu said "no" when asked if a dog has Buddha nature, or why on another occasion he replied "yes", or why he said the other things he said in those encounters. Typically, if one is a student whose obstructions are such that the recognition we call kensho could not happen spontaneously without prior practice (as Huineng), or through the various physical, verbal or other methods connected with a teacher's activity, then one might first be given a method like breath-counting to remove obstructions, develop basic stability and one-pointed concentration. Since zazen is the fastest way to do this, one will also be given instructions that go with that regarding the body and senses, e.g. use of the pelvic floor and diaphragm to set a subtle, constant breath power in the lower trunk, how to use the eyes, and so on. Simultaneously, one will be taught to remain present in activity when not sitting, and how to use the body to do that. Eventually when the samadhi of this practice ripens one will be given the wato Mu, with instructions not to bother with researching the background of Buddha-nature debate vis a vis canines, but rather to do with Mu precisely and exactly what Mumon kindly says we should do with it in his commentary on that koan.

So yes, some engagement with the words...but then the method has to be taken up with the body, within the container of one's samadhi. Though in some cases, even when all of the preconditions for using such a method have not yet ripened, one might still be given the wato to work on since it also can be used to cultivate the mentioned stability and concentration.

So those are descriptions of of a koan being used as "direct pointing"...or in the second case I mentioned, to remove obstructions in preparation for that.

Now, when the student finally does grasp the essential point through use of that wato, he/she will be asked to express it face to face with the teacher. Here, words might or might not be used. But there is at least one traditional "checking question" connected with that koan Mu that, in fact, requires the student to switch gears and very precisely explain - verbally, intellectually - the essential import of what was experienced. So we start to see a kind of constant jumping in and out of intellectual and verbal activity like this. Unless it is grounded in kensho, though, it is not considered acceptable.

Later, subsequent koan practice is understood as something that cultivates a seamless upwelling of that recognition we call kensho (this being the Zen understanding of what an actually true samadhi is, i.e. not separate from prajna) and simultaneously as something which is accomplished within that samadhi. For example, one may be directed to examine the koan that center around the Five Ranks. To "pass" certain of these, one must clearly show signs of grasping what is meant by practice of the Jewel Mirror Samadhi. Then, one is exhorted after passing those koan to take up a constant and hidden practice of the Jewel Mirror Samadhi for at least three years, by which one makes it one's own. So here is an example of koan being used to help the student embody and refine recognition...the so-called post-kensho practice which is the real Zen training. This is also an example, by the way, of how so-called koan curricula are not rigid, fixed things, but rather serve as general frameworks for practice pointing out many other expressions of practice which are not koan, per se.

We could describe intellectual study using this same model, I think. Before kensho, it is to remove obstructions by establishing "right view". Then, to help directly point out our nature by negating views. Then, to freely wield language and concepts without fixation or limitations even of "Buddhism", as suits conditions to benefit others, etc.

And then there is a classic Rinzai understanding of textual study and the correct time for it: well after one's practice has matured, as a means to check one's realization and ensure that it tallies with what texts reveal. Essentially, at the end of the path rather than the beginning. This model may, I have have thought, be the reason many folks having a brief acquaintance with Zen are convinced that it does not engage with or value sutras and other texts. They didn't know they were on the "have kensho first, refine it for years, then dive into the books to check yourself" train.

Since everyone's path could be different, of course, these kinds of models are really just theoretical. Hence a teacher's role in helping us chart one that actually fits.

Sorry for the long post. Again, I can mostly just speak from the Rinzai standpoint as I have grasped it. But since talk of "koan practice" is usually referring to this kind or thing - and since it's so widely misunderstood - perhaps something here is relevant. Again, I'd encourage folks interested in the subject to read the intro to Hori's book.

~ Meido

[Johnny Dangerous]

Great explanation, and one that makes perfect sense to me..thanks!