It's been a good Monday to think on random things, so today I figured I'd include a random Zen riddle. Called koans, they are used to demonstrate an understanding of Buddhist principles. This is, in my opinion, one of the easier ones to 'solve'-
NANSEN CUTS THE CAT IN TWO
Nansen saw the monks of the eastern and western halls fighting over a cat. He seized the cat and told the monks, "If any of you can say a turning word, you can save the cat."
No one answered. So Nansen cut the cat in two pieces.
That evening Joshu returned, and Nansen told him about this. Joshu removed a sandal, and placing it on his head, walked out.
Nansen said, "If you had been there, you would have saved the cat."
Mumon's Comment- Why did Joshu put his sandals on his head? If anyone understands this question, he will understand exactly how Nansen enforced the edict. If not, he should watch his own head.
Had Joshu been there
He would have enforced the edict oppositely
Joshu snatches the sword
And Nansen begs for his life
So now that you're thoroughly confused, let me add to that by telling you the answer I came up with-
Nansen could cut the cat in two pieces
Now show me the sword sharp enough to cut the cat in one piece
Whoever has this sword cuts through them all
The monks, Nansen, the sandals, with a single stroke
The eastern and western halls refer to a common division among the living quarters of monks, and apparently often were not unlike rival high schools in some respects. A turning word refers to a word, phrase or action with which one would demonstrate an understanding of Zen- they were always spontaneous, and an expression of understanding of the question being asked. Turning words are some of the hardest things to identify in Zen. But on to the koan- here we have a bunch of monks arguing over the cat. The cat is not important- it could be anything- a desk, a bowl of fruit, even the hall itself. The point is we have here two divided factions, each calling it something different. The thing to keep in mind here is that the monks disagree on the reality of this point of contention- who is right? What is it really? So in walks Nansen, and holds the cat up in the air- why? Simply to draw attention to the fact that the cat is- by this logic, if the two parties disagree, they're both wrong, and neither identifies the cat as a cat, or the true nature of the cat. This is a tough concept to grasp, and requires a good deal of thought and reflection- I can tell you from experience, it'll come to you in time.
At any rate, here we have Nansen saying, in essence, tell me the true nature of this cat- what is it really, apart from your arguing? No one can really answer, as they're too caught up in their ideas to see past that. (Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!) So Nansen (probably symbolically) makes his point by dividing the cat in two- "See? Now the cat is in two parts, as you all seem to think it is!"
Then Joshu shows up. Joshu, or Chao-Chu in Chinese, is a common figure in these stories. He manages to demonstrate the futility of saying "it's this", or "it's that"- rather, Buddhism tells us to reflect like a mirror- the mirror doesn't choose what is good or bad and reflect only that, it only reflects the light that strikes it, showing whatever we put in front of it. Hopefully this clarifies things- where is the sword sharp enough to cut the cat in one piece? You are. Look through your thoughts, evaluations and desires, and see not only the cat, but the world around you for what it truly is. And what is that? The world. Nothing more, nothing less. Even saying nothing more isn't quite right, it's more along the lines of the world is.
Hopefully this clarifies things, perhaps not. Well, think about it, it'll come to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment