Nansen's Cat (Gateless Checkpoint 15)

The Case:
Once, when the monks of the Western and Eastern Halls were quarrelling about a cat, Nansen, holding up the cat, said, “You monks! if any of you can speak a word of Zen I will spare the cat, otherwise I will kill it!” No one could answer, so Nansen killed it. In the evening, Joshu came back from somewhere, and Nansen told him what had happened. Joshu thereupon took off his shoe, put it on his head, and walked off. Nansen said, “If only you had been there, I could have saved the cat!”

The Commentary:
Just say, what is the meaning of Joshu putting his shoe on his head? If you can express the meaning of his words and actions, they were not in vain, but if not, you are in danger.

The Verse:
If Joshu had been there,
Everything would have been done the other way round.
He would have snatched away the Knife,
And Nansen would have begged for his life.

Me:
The monks were all having a spat
over who should take care of the cat.
Perceiving a gaffe,
Nansen chopped it in half,
then Joshu wore shoes for a hat.

I am not sure whether the act of putting a shoe on your head had any meaning in the culture at that time, but I am assuming for now that it was simply an absurd non-reactive-reaction.

Gateless mentions Joshu's "words," none of which are quoted or paraphrased in the story given here. I wonder if there is an extended version of the story Gateless had in mind.

Can we express the meaning of his action?

Well, I note that it is a response that appears to be formally unresponsive, and achieves that appearance through spontaneity. Throughout many of the cases in the Gateless Checkpoint, this seems to be a crucial conceptual (yes I said it) interplay--that between form, appearance, response and spontaneity. (For example Gutei's finger, and the monk (or two monks) raising the fist at Joshu, and Buddha's flower.)

If I were brave I would articulate the meaning of Joshu's action as: "The mode of response is entirely up to the one responding, and indifference is not different from engagement." I suspect an implication: "You (Nansen) were entirely spontaneous in your response to the monks' silence, and your indifference to the death of the cat was identical to engagement with it."

What can I do with this? It is easy for me to see how indifference is engagement. But can I see how engagement is indifference? If I can, then I can see how the two are not different. Joshu's action starts to show this to me--he _is engaged_ in his response, though it is formally indifferent.

You:
?

Submitted January 15, 2020 at 09:56PM by Porn_Steal https://ift.tt/3abX4JZ