Zen teachings

[Dgj]

I understand that Zen, or at least the Zen of the koans, is totally unique and necessarily transcends all notions shared by other forms of Buddhism such as "Buddha nature" and "oneness", "karma" and "scripture", "sacred" and "holy" and that when these and related terms are used in koans it is in order for the student to learn to move beyond these ideas. Zen transcends everything, nothing could be said that would be correct in speaking about it. The only way to teach it is in guiding a student to a direct experience of it.

Am I correct or is the Zen detailed in so many koans, in such unique language, actually teaching the same core Buddhist ideas found in nearly all schools but with language being used in creative, seemingly illogical ways to describe these very same core ideas?

For example where I believe that Joshu's oak tree in the garden (Gateless Gate number thirty-seven) points to something beyond all reason and therefore necessarily beyond the standard teaching of Buddha nature or oneness etc., I may be wrong and the koan may actually be a creative way of explaining Buddha nature or oneness as described in the sutras or some other standard Buddhist teaching.

If I am right, why?

If I am wrong, why all the insistence that Zen is unique and outside the scriptures and why did they create a massive corpus of texts that are very unique if all they wanted to do was use these texts to point to standard ideas from the scriptures? Why not just use the sutras rather than speak in seemingly illogical ways, that are almost like riddles sometimes, only to have those illogical riddles be answered automatically by ideas already very well known and explained in the sutras?

[LastLegend]

You have to be honest with what you really know.

[Wayfarer]

It's not the kind of question which lends itself to Internet forums. After all you can type away on forums whilst just going about your daily life with all its comforts and distractions. In contrast Zen is a very hands-on form of training when undertaken in the formal setting which pushes the practitioners beyond their ordinary limits. Or so I understand.

[Johnny Dangerous]

*Realization* outside scriptures.

All realization is outside scriptures, by definition. Zen has many unique aspects, such as it's subitism, but it is a form of Mahayana Buddhism.

If I am wrong, why all the insistence that Zen is unique and outside the scriptures and why did they create a massive corpus of texts that are very unique if all they wanted to do was use these texts to point to standard ideas from the scriptures? Why not just use the sutras rather than speak in seemingly illogical ways, that are almost like riddles sometimes, only to have those illogical riddles be answered automatically by ideas already very well known and explained in the sutras?

84000 doors and all that.

[Matylda]

I understand that Zen, or at least the Zen of the koans, is totally unique and necessarily transcends all notions shared by other forms of Buddhism such as "Buddha nature" and "oneness", "karma" and "scripture", "sacred" and "holy" and that when these and related terms are used in koans it is in order for the student to learn to move beyond these ideas. Zen transcends everything, nothing could be said that would be correct in speaking about it. The only way to teach it is in guiding a student to a direct experience of it.

Am I correct or is the Zen detailed in so many koans, in such unique language, actually teaching the same core Buddhist ideas found in nearly all schools but with language being used in creative, seemingly illogical ways to describe these very same core ideas?

For example where I believe that Joshu's oak tree in the garden (Gateless Gate number thirty-seven) points to something beyond all reason and therefore necessarily beyond the standard teaching of Buddha nature or oneness etc., I may be wrong and the koan may actually be a creative way of explaining Buddha nature or oneness as described in the sutras or some other standard Buddhist teaching.

If I am right, why?

If I am wrong, why all the insistence that Zen is unique and outside the scriptures and why did they create a massive corpus of texts that are very unique if all they wanted to do was use these texts to point to standard ideas from the scriptures? Why not just use the sutras rather than speak in seemingly illogical ways, that are almost like riddles sometimes, only to have those illogical riddles be answered automatically by ideas already very well known and explained in the sutras?

Koan is just one way of approach.. and it appeared almost 400 years after introduction of zen in China. But it is an excellent method. However without proper teacher it is very risky to speculate about koans and their meaning or even their purpot. There are of course many other zen teachings, not only koans, which were given up to the XXI century.
As for sutras in some of them there are many cases and passages which go beyond dual thinking or fabrications.. even some koans are just passages from sutras. There are cases in sutras where pivotal questions or problems are addressed by silence. Like in Vimalakirti sutra and other.
I think that Torei zenji described also in his Mujinto relation between koan zen and sutra.. Similarly in soto zen sutras are used and accepted as expression of zen truth. Dogen zenji quoted widely sutras in Shobogenzo.

[seeker242]

[Ayu]

I like that.

[DGA]

I understand that Zen, or at least the Zen of the koans, is totally unique and necessarily transcends all notions shared by other forms of Buddhism such as "Buddha nature" and "oneness", "karma" and "scripture", "sacred" and "holy" and that when these and related terms are used in koans it is in order for the student to learn to move beyond these ideas. Zen transcends everything, nothing could be said that would be correct in speaking about it. The only way to teach it is in guiding a student to a direct experience of it.

Am I correct or is the Zen detailed in so many koans, in such unique language, actually teaching the same core Buddhist ideas found in nearly all schools but with language being used in creative, seemingly illogical ways to describe these very same core ideas?

For example where I believe that Joshu's oak tree in the garden (Gateless Gate number thirty-seven) points to something beyond all reason and therefore necessarily beyond the standard teaching of Buddha nature or oneness etc., I may be wrong and the koan may actually be a creative way of explaining Buddha nature or oneness as described in the sutras or some other standard Buddhist teaching.

If I am right, why?

If I am wrong, why all the insistence that Zen is unique and outside the scriptures and why did they create a massive corpus of texts that are very unique if all they wanted to do was use these texts to point to standard ideas from the scriptures? Why not just use the sutras rather than speak in seemingly illogical ways, that are almost like riddles sometimes, only to have those illogical riddles be answered automatically by ideas already very well known and explained in the sutras?

These are excellent questions. I won't presume to answer them. However, I will point you to a worthwhile and substantive discussion in a different thread on the issue of transmission in Zen. The good stuff starts here.

http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f= ... 20#p357747

[Dgj]

What would the masters in the koans say to them being explained with standard scripture?

What would Joshu say if someone explained his oak tree to him using standard scripture quotes and explanations?

What would Gutei say if someone explained his finger Zen to him in the same way?

I imagine Joshu would say "no" and Gutei would do something drastic. However neither would be likely to agree that these are correct ways to interpret their Zen.

But then the questioner and people reading their question and the koan they relate to and the masters answers would all be interpreted using the scriptures again. Then we could repeat the experiment and ask the master in question about the whole sequence. Again they would not agree and the whole thing would be interpreted yet again in the same way.

The result would be many scriptural explanations rejected by the masters and then those rejections being explained using the scriptures and so on.

Does this mean that the masters generally spoke in seemingly confusing ways but that are always translatable using scripture even if they denied this? Or is there something more to this and Zen goes beyond?

I see nothing wrong with either side of the discussion, Zen is an amazing tradition either way, but I believe the koans point to such a discussion being had by their very nature and by the masters statements about Zen being outside scripture, etc.

Had the masters spoken plainly in scriptural language and been in agreement that Zen is within standard scripture then no discussion would be needed. But as it is, they left us with some riddles to scratch our heads at and discuss by stating otherwise.

[Astus]

"The transmission of the mind by the World Honored One at three sites is the gist of Seon; what was spoken by him over his lifetime80 is the gate of Doctrine. Therefore it is said, “Seon is the Buddha mind; Doctrine is the Buddha word.”"
(Hyujeong: Seonga gwigam, in Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, vol 3, p 58)

Koans are literary products of Chinese Buddhist teachers, meant for the educated elite of monastics and literati. In practice, the method of kanna zen is using a phrase to cease conceptualisation and recognise the nature of mind. The literary and the practical sides are related but not identical, hence the differentiation between literary/monji zen (wenzi chan 文字禪) and kanna zen (kanhua chan 看話禪). However, both are meant to deliver the meaning of the Buddha's teaching and nothing else.

[LastLegend]

Dgj wrote:

The result would be many scriptural explanations rejected by the masters and then those rejections being explained using the scriptures and so on.

It's not one way or the other. It's showing your mind.

[Dgj]

"The transmission of the mind by the World Honored One at three sites is the gist of Seon; what was spoken by him over his lifetime80 is the gate of Doctrine. Therefore it is said, “Seon is the Buddha mind; Doctrine is the Buddha word.”"
(Hyujeong: Seonga gwigam, in Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, vol 3, p 58)

Koans are literary products of Chinese Buddhist teachers, meant for the educated elite of monastics and literati. In practice, the method of kanna zen is using a phrase to cease conceptualisation and recognise the nature of mind. The literary and the practical sides are related but not identical, hence the differentiation between literary/monji zen (wenzi chan 文字禪) and kanna zen (kanhua chan 看話禪). However, both are meant to deliver the meaning of the Buddha's teaching and nothing else.

Okay thank you. What am I thinking of then? What religion or philosophy is said to be beyond literally everything and one-hundred percent impossible to pin down? That absolutely no words or descriptions can hold and that have no grounding or explanation anywhere? Completely and utterly transcendent? I thought it was Zen, being that Buddha is said to be mind in the scriptures and we have Zen masters saying it is not Buddha and not mind, it seemed like this meant they were pointing to something beyond both distinctions. Any ideas?

[AlexMcLeod]

I don't believe any are spoken of in that way.

However, I believe you are referencing the phrase, "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of ten thousand things."

[Matylda]

Okay thank you. What am I thinking of then? What religion or philosophy is said to be beyond literally everything and one-hundred percent impossible to pin down? That absolutely no words or descriptions can hold and that have no grounding or explanation anywhere? Completely and utterly transcendent? I thought it was Zen, being that Buddha is said to be mind in the scriptures and we have Zen masters saying it is not Buddha and not mind, it seemed like this meant they were pointing to something beyond both distinctions. Any ideas?

Actually what you are asking about is without any meaning in zen... what is truly pivotal in zen i practice itself and well grounded experience and realization. If you look for philosophy or 'religion' beyond this or that then zen is irrelevant and it is waste of time.. it is purely speculative pursue.

[Astus]

Okay thank you. What am I thinking of then? What religion or philosophy is said to be beyond literally everything and one-hundred percent impossible to pin down? That absolutely no words or descriptions can hold and that have no grounding or explanation anywhere? Completely and utterly transcendent? I thought it was Zen, being that Buddha is said to be mind in the scriptures and we have Zen masters saying it is not Buddha and not mind, it seemed like this meant they were pointing to something beyond both distinctions. Any ideas?

If it is a view (teaching, doctrine, philosophy, religion, etc.), it is a set of concepts. Zen, and Buddhism in general, teaches that concepts are interdependent and insubstantial. Realising that concepts are empty is how one eliminates attachment to views, and, in a manner of speaking, attains no-view, and that is what could be called beyond views.

[Dgj]

"The transmission of the mind by the World Honored One at three sites is the gist of Seon; what was spoken by him over his lifetime80 is the gate of Doctrine. Therefore it is said, “Seon is the Buddha mind; Doctrine is the Buddha word.”"
(Hyujeong: Seonga gwigam, in Collected Works of Korean Buddhism, vol 3, p 58)

Koans are literary products of Chinese Buddhist teachers, meant for the educated elite of monastics and literati. In practice, the method of kanna zen is using a phrase to cease conceptualisation and recognise the nature of mind. The literary and the practical sides are related but not identical, hence the differentiation between literary/monji zen (wenzi chan 文字禪) and kanna zen (kanhua chan 看話禪). However, both are meant to deliver the meaning of the Buddha's teaching and nothing else.

You clearly know a lot more than I do, would you mind answering one more question that confuses me?

If Zen is the Buddha mind which the Buddha also possessed when teaching the three turnings of the wheel then where does Nansen killing a living being or Gutei chopping off a finger fit in? The Buddha was adamently against violence of any kind. Interpreting the "skillfull means" as an explanation for this would allow for any and all violence so I do not find that to be a good reason. The Buddha never taught upaya as a method of extreme violence or killing. Buddhas I thought were explained as beings that cannot kill or deliberately injure? This still is within scripture? If so, how?

[White Lotus]

it is neither mind nor no mind. neither view nor no view. neither emptiness nor form. unconscious. blind and yet seeing.

[White Lotus]

empty of emptiness. sunya sunyata.

[Dgj]

Okay thank you. What am I thinking of then? What religion or philosophy is said to be beyond literally everything and one-hundred percent impossible to pin down? That absolutely no words or descriptions can hold and that have no grounding or explanation anywhere? Completely and utterly transcendent? I thought it was Zen, being that Buddha is said to be mind in the scriptures and we have Zen masters saying it is not Buddha and not mind, it seemed like this meant they were pointing to something beyond both distinctions. Any ideas?

Actually what you are asking about is without any meaning in zen... what is truly pivotal in zen i practice itself and well grounded experience and realization. If you look for philosophy or 'religion' beyond this or that then zen is irrelevant and it is waste of time.. it is purely speculative pursue.

This sounds like Dogen's teaching, yes? I like it.

[Dgj]

it is neither mind nor no mind. neither view nor no view. neither emptiness nor form. unconscious. blind and yet seeing.

According to the replies above, it is in fact mind. Quotes like yours are how I ended up thinking it was beyond mind in the first place lol. How do we reconcile "neither mind nor no mind" with the teaching that is accepted in Zen that it is mind?