3 upvotes, 2 direct replies (showing 2)
View submission: A Couple of Questions Regarding Koans
Koans aren't really things that are made. The word "gong-an" means "case", like a legal precedent. Koans are usually anecdotes of interactions between Zen masters and each other, or with students, and occasionally snippets of sermons. They were likely repeated a bit orally at first, simplified, and then collected and written down, often with additional commentary by other Zen masters.
There's no way to know if Nansen actually killed a cat. It doesn't really matter, compared to the fact that Zen teachers for generations have considered it a useful story to tell, particularly with Joshu's response to the retelling of the event. What were the quarrelling monks unable to do when Nansen challenged them? What was it about Joshu's response that got Nansen's approval?
Zen drawings sound fun. Invented stories can be fun. But koans are a particular kind of teaching device, accounts of the words and actions of Zen masters, and it's probably safest not to describe any stories you come up with as koans.
Comment by chintokkong at 14/01/2025 at 03:52 UTC*
2 upvotes, 0 direct replies
There's no way to know if Nansen actually killed a cat.
Historically we do not know if Nansen killed the cat or even if such an incident happened. But within the context of the koan (as per the Caodong/Soto koan text of "Book of Serenity"), it's explicitly stated that Nansen chopped the cat in two and later 'lamented' the cat could have been saved.
There have been some who don't understand the koan yet try to showcase their mistaken interpretations by claiming that Nansen has sinned by chopping the cat dead or that Nansen only made a mock action of cutting the cat. Caodong/Soto zen teacher Wansong Xingxiu, author of Book of Serenity, criticised both such interpretations.
In weighing which of these mistaken interpretations is worse, Wansong stated that the attempt to rationalise Nansen as performing a mock killing is the worse mistaken intepretation.
Part of the problem with koans these days is that quite a number of people, including some so-called zen priests, who do not understand chinese language (the original language used for these koans) and chinese culture and Buddhism, try to give authoritative explanations of these chinese written koans in an attempt to promote their supposed 'enlightened-ness' and impress contemporary audiences by rationalising them in accordance to modern 'sensbilities'.
Few have the courage to admit they do not really understand the koans.
Comment by Erutaerc-Art at 13/01/2025 at 21:54 UTC
2 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Thank you, this really clears things up. You're right: I won't call them koans, it would be incorrect to do so.