Cleary's comments on the Wumenguan

I recently bought Cleary's translation of the Wumenguan "Unlocking the Zen Koan."

While I like his translation in general (mostly because he uses Chinese names and my previous Wumenguan translation used Japanese names), his commentary sometimes seems kinda far-fetched.

I think most of us here know the first case of the Wumenguan:

A monk asked Zhaozhou, "Does even a dog have Buddha-nature?"

Zhaozhou said, "No."

(Wumenguan, Case 1, Cleary trans.)

Now, something interesting Cleary has to say about it:

In this koan, the dog represents the state of the unenlightened person [...]

His further analysis builds on this association of "dog = unenlightened person." Personally, I've never understood the dog as a metaphor, to be honest. To me it seems to be about shaking the belief in common Buddhist dogma (all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, so why does the Zen master disagree?).

In the book of serenity, we have a longer version of this case:

A monk asked Zhaozhou, "Does a dog have a buddha-nature or not?" Zhaozhou said, "Yes." The monk said, "Since it has, why is it then in this skin bag?" Zhaozhou said, "Because he knows yet deliberately transgresses." Another monk asked Zhaozhou, "Does a dog have a buddha-nature or not?" Zhaozhou said, "No." The monk said, "All sentient beings have buddha-nature--why does a dog have none, then?" Zhaozhou said, "Because he still has impulsive consciousness."

(BoS, Case 18, Cleary trans.)

I think if it was such a clear analogy as Cleary suggests, Zhaozhou would have given the same answer twice.

Furthermore, Cleary explains:

At the most elementary level, the Zen master's statement that a dog has no Buddha-nature simple draws a distinction between the animal nature and the enlightened nature in humankind.

This also sounds wrong, where does he keep these two natures?

What do you guys think? Should the cases of the Wumenguan be interpreted as elaborate metaphors that we need to decode? I've only commented on the first case here, but Cleary does the same with the other cases as well. His conclusions seem very intellectual and the metaphors sometimes feel a bit "forced" by Cleary. But maybe it's just me not knowing these commonly known metaphors?

"Foreigner from the West" (Case 4) is a metaphor for our true self. The essential mind which is unknown and not identical to the conditioned mind. Where does this guy keep all his minds and natures?

"hanging on a tree with your mouth" (Case 5) apparently symbolizes "the attachment of a conditioned mind to the fragment of reality perceptual to the worldview to which the mind is habituated by personal and cultural history" (says Cleary).

I'm very interested to hear what everyone here says about these very metaphorical interpretations.

Submitted June 27, 2022 at 11:21PM by moinmoinyo https://ift.tt/38sTPmi