A monk asked, "What is the true Dharmakaya1 of the Buddha?"
The master said, "Is there anything else you don't like?"
1------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshu’s answer could be irrelevant to the question, bypassing the question to talk to questioner. This is a semi normal teaching technique...if you were to ask, “jeff how do I make a layup in basketball” I might say “I’m not a basketball teacher go talk to mike, he loves basketball”, I have bypassed the question but still tried to steer the questioner to their answer.
We also make this guess because the answer is so obtuse, we have to be free with our interpretation.
We do have to assume at least that Joshu is reacting to the question asked, otherwise the question probably wouldn’t be incorporated as specifically. We can play with the idea that the question is completely irrelevant but it would be a guess that I think is beyond reason, as these koans are here as teaching devices.
Not answering directly, but in some way reacting. What could he be reacting to? There is not much information, but what can we semi safely assume?
1.It’s a teaching moment, and everything that implies. Joshu is enlightened, student is not, monk looks up to joshu and thinks he has answers.
2.The monk is knowledgeable in buddhism, as well as Joshu.
3.The monk is asking a type of question that seems basic. It could maybe be advanced, as often Zen Masters ask basic questions to other Zen Masters in ‘combat’, but this koan is not set up this way.
So, joshu could be reacting to these things, based on what we can guess from the context of the situation.
If we take the safe assumption that he wasn’t reacting with a random statement, then we have to include Joshu’s statement as the main action in the reaction.
But. here we have to take a major detour and evaluate Joshu’s answer, maybe widdle down to the best one so to apply it to the contexts.
.
.
Here are some different interpretations of what Joshu said:
A- You dislike this this thing, (exclamation of surprise) what else do you dislike?(!) This would be Joshu being surprised that the student was not satisfied with the teachings he had on this aspect of buddhism. “Tell me more, you have potential!”
B - You dislike this this thing, (sacrastically) what else do you dislike? (giving negative connotation to the actual idea of disliking things) This would be Joshu poking fun at the student’s questioning, or not being satisfied with what he already knows/has.
C- You dislike this thing (now list) what else you dislike This would be Joshu setting up a starting point for a teaching, “list me all the things you dislike” D- I don’t want to talk about that, what else do you dislike (that I can teach you about) This would be Joshu asking the student to ask Joshu a different question.
E- You dislike this thing,(exaserated/frustrated) What else do you dislike? This would be Joshu being frustrated that the student is dense and not getting basic stuff.
.
.
Response B would be the one that would match the theory of Joshu reacting to the situation with some sort of instructional answer but not answering directly. The other ones are dismissing of the question, and we already guessed that wasn’t the case, as the koans are presented as teachings.
So, in this theory Joshu is admonishing/poking fun/pointing out the fact that the student is not satisfied with what he already know/has. As stated above he could be reacting to the (1) the teaching dynamic (2) the relative knowledge of the monk and Joshu (3) the basicness of the question.
.
.
Here is the Koan set up each way:
(1) Monk - “what is the essence of buddha”
Joshu - “why aren’t you satisfied with being a student”
(2)Monk - ‘what is the essence of buddha”
Joshu - “why aren’t you satisfied with what you know?
(3)Monk - “what is the essence of buddha”
Joshu - “why aren’t you satisfied….This one doesn’t work, so we kill #3. Joshu was not likely reacting to the fact that the question was too simple.
.
.
1 & 2 (we’re killing #3) seem too similar to seperate. It looks like we have something then. If Joshu was using a teaching method of not answering directly but reacting the context the it looks something like this:
Monk - “can you tell me what I don’t know”
Joshu - “why aren’t you (you should be) satisfied now/already”
Should the monk be satisfied with the teachings they already have? Or should they be satisfied with not knowing the answer? I don’t think that is necessary to answer. If the writer wanted us to know that, the koan would be more than 2 lines. In this interpretation the idea of “being satisfied” runs throughout both of those.
2------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joshu could be ignoring the context (not just reacting to the situation as in #1) and answering directly. But it does not make sense in the way that a normal question answer would. “What is an apple”, “a fruit”.
If what Joshu said is a direct answer and it’s not a teaching based on other context, then it is a riddle or it is an answer that we can’t know because it intimates the lost era too much, but it’s a simple so we can rule out the latter. It is a riddle then.
This isn’t saying much though, it’s just saying that it you must use cleverness to deduce the meaning.
Well, it actually means 1 of 2 important things:
1.Joshu is being obtuse for no reason
2.Joshu is speaking about a matter that can’t be said outright.
We can rule out #1 one here for the same reason as this being a teaching, thus a reason is implied.
But #2. #2. #2 can be connected back up with:
*Monk - “can you tell me what I don’t know”
Joshu - “why aren’t you (you should be) satisfied now/already”*
It can be connected because how can Joshu say that without making the Monk more dissatisfied? The monk is just going to think, well, you’re just satisfied because you are a master!
So, Joshu is using a riddle, or being obtuse so that the monk doesn’t fall into immediately dismissing the answer.
Finally we have that Joshu’s answer is BOTH a direct answer AND a comment on the situation/context outside of the answer.
3-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another way to look at it would be Joshu’s answer is the actual answer, just in the form of a question. “Is there anything else you don’t like” is the true essence of buddha.
If we would have started with this one, we would have been like, naw that doesn’t make anysense. But after looking at #1 #2 interpretation, we could guess that Joshu is demonstrating the answer, “the essence of buddha”.
If Joshu is satisfied with what he ‘knows’, then when he speaks he is demonstrating what it looks like to understand his own answer, so it is appropriate to say “what else do you dislike”is a straight answer to the question “what is the essence of buddha”.
Submitted November 28, 2017 at 09:08AM by Hereforfamiliar http://ift.tt/2Adca2U
No comments:
Post a Comment