Viewed instead as a tradition held by both, it makes a lot more sense. The burning is a reminder the tradition is lived rather than just laid down in text. — Willow

Absolutely! That is exactly what it is getting at.

Rumi says shut the fuck up. — Mongrel

Makes for bad forum conversations, though.

Maybe I've been reading the wrong books and listening to the wrong podcasts, but I just don't recall coming across Zen materials that have any role for compassion. This contrasts with some other streams of Buddhism in which compassion is primary. — AndrewK

I know perfectly well what you mean. This story, by the way, was reproduced in a very well-known paperback, called Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, by Paul Reps.



It was first published in the early 60's and was very popular during that period; that and Alan Watts' The Way of Zen were the two books that first interested me (and millions of others) in Zen.

But again, I don't think the point of the story is blatant disregard for an old man's feelings. The whole point about Zen (and granted it has been mythologised and polemicised) is 'direct pointing, outside words and letters'. So the story illustrates that the senior teacher had forgotten this elementary fact, and has been set straight by his student.

Don't forget elsewhere in this genre, exhortations such as 'if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him', and other exclamations comparing the Buddha and the patriachs to old fools and the scriptures to toilet paper. It is part of the polemical technique of Zen, and sometimes it is shocking, but it is always concerned with 'direct pointing'. What I admire about it, is exactly the way it deflates priestly cant and religiosity. Many of the iconic figures of Zen were tramps and vagrants. (And actually the comparison with Rumi is apt, the Sufis are very similar, for which they were often horribly persecuted by other Muslims.)

A question then - does the concept of bodhisattva get much airplay in Zen? As I understand it, the whole point of the bodhisattva concept is compassion for the unenlightened. — AndrewK

I post on Dharmawheel and have asked the same question there. And the answer is that it absolutely is. But it is a compassion can sometimes appear harsh, something that is sometimes referred to as 'ruthless compassion'. Zen is concerned with ultimate realities, what is not going to get burned off in the wheel of life and death. And oriental culture is very harsh in some respects, no question there. Obviously, when Zen was used to rationalise war crimes and imperial conquest, which it was (the definitive book being Zen at War, Brian Victoria), then anything like 'compassion' has been thrown out the window. But I would like to think that this was an aberration. There were also Zen priests who were imprisoned for conscientious objection. And generally speaking Buddhism is resolutely opposed to imposition of order by force or violence. The Buddha wasn't necessarily a pacifist, but there is not a single example of him recommending or using any kind of physical coercion or force throughout his teaching career.

deleted, wrong spot!

To introduce a dissenting voice here (although I'm not playing devil's advocate - this is my real opinion), the starkness of Zen Buddhism is part of what appeals to me about it. My normal approach to such things is to get all theoretical, but Zen just slaps that out of my hands. Perhaps that's why I like it - I'm the sort of dopey person who responds only to a sound smack upside the head, and Zen delivers that, literally and figuratively.

Also, what Unenlightened said.

Hey, I'm all for tough love when deserved, but most importantly, and significantly it isn't in this case. There are no significant stakes. He's being a dick to an old man, not actually to convey any wisdom, teaching, or anything helpful at all, in this case, he's wrong, and his beliefs are stupid. He's being a dick to someone, because of the wrong and stupid things he thinks.

Don't you also find the talk of tradition inconsistent and ironic? It's a misunderstanding of the teaching, and not properly living it to keep such a book, according to the tradition, even though the book is seven generations old... so like at least two hundred years. That's quite a tradition... also if the tradition is to badmouth the tradition, and teaching as something to be discarded, then aren't you actually failing to do that by ritualistically just going through the motions of saying what you're supposed to about saying what you're not supposed to? Wouldn't praising the tradition, and keeping a valued possession actually be more in line with the teaching?

True. Mystical traditions sometimes stray into moral ambiguity, though. The Tao Te Ching does. So does Rumi. Maybe this was the Zen lesson about how to be an asshole.

Now that's something I can believe he's a master of.

Zen conjures a setting of Japanese austerity, essentially a kind of brutal boot camp for the initiate.

Drill instructors always are characterized as assholes but that is part of the tradition.

Maybe the superior is getting a taste of his own medicine in a humorous way (if Zen makes everything easy, everything is already resolved).

Wouldn't praising the tradition, and keeping a valued possession actually be more in line with the teaching? — Wosret

'Keeping something' would not really be in keeping with the spirit of Zen, which is basically renuciate in orientation.

The legendary founding of Zen is an apocryphal story in which Śākyamuni (i.e. the Buddha) gives a wordless sermon to the sangha by holding up a single flower while remaining completely silent. No one in the audience understands what he means - except Mahākāśyapa, who smiles. This prompts Śākyamuni to say:

I possess the true Dharma eye, the marvelous mind of Nirvāṇa, the true form of the formless, the subtle Dharma Gate that does not rest on words or letters but is a special transmission outside of the scriptures. This I entrust to Mahākāśyapa.

Woodblock portrait of Mahākāśyapa.

So that is the 'legendary founding' of the tradition, which was then said to be have been transmitted 'mind to mind' by the patriarchs of the Ch'an and Zen tradition (although again, aspects of the history are apocryphal.)
-------------
Of course there's a paradox in the 'tradition of no tradition' and 'the teaching of no teaching'. But Zen thrives on paradox. The founding sutras of Zen Buddhism, like the Lankavatara Sutra, and the Diamond Sutra, are full of paradox.

Oh yeah! They're suicide bombers too! The first ones, the original inspiration, and true cause of all subsequent terror events! They hate our freedom, materialism, and "unlived" knowledge. They must take it upon themselves to awaken the world by destroying the things we care about. — Wosret

Hmm, have you been overdosing on Manga again, Wos? ;)

I wish...

I always find what seems to me to be a lot of formalized 'proving your enlightenment' and an unhealthy preoccupation with certification and lineage in Zen literature. So, I tend to interpret this story as showing the young, over-enthusiastic and lacking-in-subtlety upstart who is really, despite his apparent iconoclasm, a boringly conventional embodiment of political correctness, and simply does not recognize that such a significant artifact may be imbued with spiritual value and might warrant being highly valued, without any detrimental sense of attachment. For me Zen is just another organized religion, with all the attendant shortcomings, although of course, like all religions, not without its great sages and thinkers.

So if he had given the book to you, you would have taken it, bowed, and respectfully set it aside.... ;)

I can't say what I would have done. It would depend on the particular circumstances. Of course, the interpretation I gave is only one of a number of possible interpretations; you would have to have been there, and even then...

The cruelty thing.

If you are foolish enough to hire a personal trainer, you expect him to push you to do things you are reluctant to do, to hold you to a regime when you want to abandon it. You don't want him to indulge your weakness. The self cannot be transcended by such indulgence.

So when your trainer gets tired and weak, you become his trainer, and hold him to the standard he has set for himself as he has done for you.

The master has not mastered the pupil, but mastered himself, except that in this case he has slipped. The pupil is not looking to become the master of anyone but himself. Seeing the master slip, he hauls him back from the abyss and doesn't worry about a a little rope burn to the ego.

"Transcending the self"- it seems to be a meaningless idea...

Au contraire. 'When you've seen beyond yourself you will realise that you are very small and life flows on within you and without you' ~ George Harrison.

"Transcending the self"- it seems to be a meaningless idea... — John

Well you understand it in the context of physical training - crossing the pain barrier; not being self-indulgent. One 'pushes oneself' necessarily from a place of exteriority to the self that is being pushed. That is why the trainer is useful, apart from a certain expertise, as the psychological support against the weakness of oneself.

It's only a meaningless idea if you are entirely single-minded and at one with the universe.

Well you understand it in the context of physical training - crossing the pain barrier; not being self-indulgent. One 'pushes oneself' necessarily from a place of exteriority to the self that is being pushed. That is why the trainer is useful, apart from a certain expertise, as the psychological support against the weakness of oneself. — unenlightened

So for the record, this statement has absolutely nothing to do with Buddhism (Zen or otherwise). It appears to be some sort of S&M spirituality.

It's only a meaningless idea if you are entirely single-minded and at one with the universe. — unenlightened

As if you would know. Give me a break.

So for the record, this statement has absolutely nothing to do with Buddhism (Zen or otherwise). It appears to be some sort of S&M spirituality. — Mongrel

For the record, it's a statement about fitness regimes. Personally, I find declarations of meaninglessness applied to well used phrases a bit suspect. Especially when unaccompanied by any analysis of the internal contradictions that might make them so.

I hope you are familiar with the use of analogy. The basis of the analogy is that one subordinates oneself to a strict regime in order to achieve a goal fitness, or enlightenment. Both are somewhat difficult and serious undertakings that require that one take pains to achieve them. Neither has the least connection with S&M, and it is an uncharitable smear to suggest it.

I take it that you do not appreciate my thoughts. I'd be grateful if you would just ignore them, since you do not wish to engage with them.

As if you would know. — Mongrel

As if you would know what I am in a position to know. This is just childish isn't it. It is also a really misguided putdown on your part, since I am claiming that the phrase has meaning for the unenlightened - so I am indeed in exactly the position to know.

Give me a break. — Mongrel

Have a break.

I take it that you do not appreciate my thoughts. I'd be grateful if you would just ignore them, since you do not wish to engage with them. — unenlightened

It would have been appropriate for you to have prefaced your earlier statements with "These are my personal thoughts and shouldn't be construed as explaining anything about Zen Buddhism." In that case, I wouldn't have responded to your post.

since I am claiming that the phrase has meaning for the unenlightened - so I am indeed in exactly the position to know. — unenlightened

So again, it would be appropriate for you to offer your opinion on whether "transcendence of self" has meaning. Explain what it means to you. Perhaps offer that you've observed that in your language community, it has meaning x. Or if you wanted to be astonishing, you could have asked John why he supposes that the phrase has no meaning.

Again... if you want to reign in the authoritative tone, I'll be happy to ignore your posts.

Anything worthwhile about religions relates to the idea of transcending self, which is a lot harder to do than to say. Self is a pattern of habits, associations, graspings, ideas, and judgements - a cultural construct, a psychological mechanism, and the centre of our imaginary world. Seeing through that, letting go of it, surpassing it, is certainly the aim of Zen.

To study the buddha way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self.

Dogen Zen-ji, Genjo-koan.

I can see the point of the idea of self-transcendence in the ordinary sense of evolutionary change from one state to another. Also, I can understand the sense, as in the George Harrison quote, of seeing the countless others and the larger world, beyond the 'little' self.

In regard to the Koan, again, I think it shows the absolutist presupposition of Shoju, as to what state of mind Mu-nan was in and 'should' be in. Since there is no absolute 'final state' in the evolution of the soul, (and that is why I find the idea of self-transcendence in that implied sense meaningless) how could Shoju know that sentimental feeling would not be beneficial for Mu-nan at that point, or even know that it was under the influence of sentimental feeling that Mu-nan was acting in that moment?

In short I think individual's are responsible for their own development, and are in the best position to assess 'where they are at', the ability of so-called 'masters' to possibly facilitate spiritual growth notwithstanding.

Also, in relation to the burning of books; would Zen even exist as an institution today if not for canonical literature? I would say 'no', and wouldn't that purported fact, if accepted, warrant spiritual respect for anything that constitutes the preservation of the tradition for the future? Mu-nan's reaction may have had nothing to do with any sentimental feelings; he may simply have been angry on account of Shoju's simple-mindedness.

I did address the paradoxical quality of Zen - that it is 'a tradition that criticizes tradition'. (Although actually, the connotation of 'book-burning' hadn't occured to me, and besides, the volume that was burned was something like a 'teachers notebook' rather than a printed volume.) And again, the point of the koan is to drive home the central idea of Zen, 'direct pointing without recourse to words and letters'.

One of the unique characteristics of Buddhism is the analogy that Buddhism itself is simply 'a raft to cross the river'. To paraphrase: when the 'other shore' is reached, then all teachings are relinquished 1. So in this understanding, Buddhism, or any teaching, is like 'a finger pointing at the moon'. Zen, in particular, emphasises that perspective - 'don't get hung up on externals'. Of course as many scholars have pointed out, in so doing it has produced a voluminous commentarial literature! But there is also a constant theme in that literature, that 'words and letters' are simply signs and symbols, that are pointing to a larger and elusive truth. (And I don't think you see that awareness in, for example, the Christian tradition, it is one of the key differentiators of Buddhism in my view.)

I can see the point of the idea of self-transcendence in the ordinary sense of evolutionary change from one state to another. — John

What do you mean by 'evolutionary'? If you're referring to the 'evolution of consciousness', well and good, but that is not within the ambit of evolutionary biology per se.

But more than that, self-transcendence is the central insight of the great traditions. The 'sacrifice of the self' is the basis of the Christian faith - 'he that looses his life for My sake will be saved'. All of the spiritual traditions point to the transcendence of ego. The Christians talk in terms of union with deity, which is different from the Buddhist approach, but in both the key understanding is self-transcendence. That's what makes them a religious ethos!

Although actually, the connotation of 'book-burning' hadn't occured to me, and besides, the volume that was burned was something like a 'teachers notebook' rather than a printed volume. — Wayfarer

Yes, but it is a teacher's notebook handed down through seven generations; and what else is it that is destined to become the canonical literature? Blue Cliff Record? Transmission of The Lamp? There are many such compilations I believe. Perhaps the book the young idiot burned could have become one of them, and benefited future generations.

It's all very well to say that I no longer need the teaching, and abandon the raft, but what about those to come? How will they cross the river? In any case I think the idea of absolute self-transcendence is nonsense; if anything self-transcendence it is a never-ending spiritual evolution (and I wasn't referring to Darwinian understandings of evolution), there is no 'final state', as I said earlier. This makes the analogy of crossing the river somewhat inapt; it is more like crossing an endless ocean whose far shore ever recedes, and maybe changing rafts or vessels as they become progressively unsuitable for the conditions. In that case the abandoned rafts should not be burned or sunk but left floating for others that may benefit from taking them up as needed.

So, the transcendence of self is an ideal, and it can only be, if anything, the progressive relinquishing of a lower self to allow a higher self to begin to take control. There has never been a perfect man, not even Jesus.

In any case I think the idea of absolute self-transcendence is nonsense; if anything self-transcendence it is a never-ending spiritual evolution (and I wasn't referring to Darwinian understandings of evolution), there is no 'final state', as I said earlier. — John

That is where you will differ with the Buddhist understanding, insofar as that is what Nirvāṇa is. I won't attempt to persuade you, but I think it is worth pointing that out.

OK, but even if it is granted, for the sake of argument, that there could be a final state; what about the future generations that might have benefited from the burned book? Isn't it shortsighted and selfish not to seek to preserve every possible spiritual resource for the future?

But iit is not a story about book-burning, per se. In fact, had I realised that it was, how shall we say, invoking the imagery of 'book-burning', then I never would have posted it, there many other koans that make a similar point :(

Personal trainers are terrible scams, and it isn't good for you to go to the gym and kick your ass, and be sore as shit the next day. Can you do that everyday? Were you comfortable with the things you did? Did you sacrifice form, stability, and control for more more more? Almost certainly you did, because if you don't feel the burn, if it isn't super difficult, and you aren't dead the next day they must be bad at their jobs. They give you what you want, which is not to be healthy and in shape, a life long constant endeavor. No, what you really want is to whip yourself, and make sacrifices and then to continue with business as usual. Think that they do that to themselves? Nope, but it's a fantastic selling point, because it's what people expect, and the super cereal about it think that trainers are shit unless they're yelling slogans at you in between yelling "push it!" "one more"!

Lions sleep for 21 hours a day, and are probably the laziest animals on the planet, but I still wouldn't fuck with one.

There's also the problem that there is no ideal proper human form, there is no proper way to do anything. We're all fairly similar, so lots will be applicable to most everyone, but more than likely some fitness expert will be pushing the stuff that they thought worked for them, with zero insight into what may work for you, and often wrong about the effects it had on them.

I of course don't do that, I see what people are actually doing, what they're feeling, I do, and feel it too, which is difficult only to the extent that it feels weird, wrong and unnatural at first, a tad uncomfortable too, and you have to constantly remember to do it and feel it all the time, but eventually you're doing it without thinking about it!

That's what I do, I care not for the inferior methods of others.

It may not be the intention of the story to focus on the issue of book-burning, but nonetheless, a book is burned; and I don't see how that can be irrelevant the import of the story, and to what we might think about the characters.

Personal trainers are terrible scams, and it isn't good for you to go to the gym and kick your ass, and be sore as shit the next day. — Wosret

Actually the latest research in sports science shows that it is very good for you to do precisely that; but not so often that your muscles do not have time to recover and grow stronger.