*giggles* I used to say the same thing about koans, seriously! Then I finally figured out what they were about.... they're not trying to be wise, they're trying to be ridiculous by simply getting you to think in a new way. They work if you don't take them "seriously" or intellectually.
Example koan: A dog barks. A cat meows.
The "point" of the koan is to get you to acknowledge how the ridiculously "ordinary" and "obvious" truths are the ones we usually miss. Some Zen student will sit there and philosophize on this koan for months until they finally break and realize the same response a child would have given to that koan immediately: "That's stupid! Of course a dog barks and a cat meows!" Aha! But the "adult" misses the point entirely in trying to over intellectualize or spiritualize it.
Okay, that's the end of my attempt to redeem koans.
Oh. You think that's really the intention from the start? Because I've always felt that koans were just a couple vague statements designed to fool someone into thinking they're deep, when really they're just nonsense.
Oh yeah, that's definitely my understanding from what I've studied. Koans are supposed to seem like nonsense in order to get you to think outside the box. All beginners see only the nonsense and not the intention behind them. A Zen Buddhist would say that koans are supposed to be ridiculous, obvious, or nonsensical on the surface, but they still point to something deeper, beyond the words themselves. Koans often say logically contradictory things on purpose in order to make you think in terms of paradox or even to question your own assumptions, etc.
Here's my amatuer Zen attempt: Let's say I want to teach that our perspectives as individuals are limited. Rather than saying that explicitly, the Zen way would be to say something like: "I am right. You are wrong. You are right. I am wrong." Of course I said something ridiculous and logically contradictory, but it causes the listener to experience the point rather than intellectualize it. They might ponder it awhile and finally end up realizing, "Yeah, it is the case that people can be both right and wrong at the same time. Our ability to know the truth is limited" or something similar. I've made my point, but I made it in a way that bypasses some of the intellectualizing and logic and gets at something a bit deeper. (My koan is not all that good though. Most koans I've worked with are much more interesting and do a better job than that!)
huh. I don't know what I think about it. I might use something koan-esque to begin an arguement for something, but I wouldn't leave it by itself. Eh. It sounds like too much of the faux-wise bullshit I hear from a lot of dumbasses.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
novapsyche![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-01-16 09:07 am (UTC)Example koan: A dog barks. A cat meows.
The "point" of the koan is to get you to acknowledge how the ridiculously "ordinary" and "obvious" truths are the ones we usually miss. Some Zen student will sit there and philosophize on this koan for months until they finally break and realize the same response a child would have given to that koan immediately: "That's stupid! Of course a dog barks and a cat meows!" Aha! But the "adult" misses the point entirely in trying to over intellectualize or spiritualize it.
Okay, that's the end of my attempt to redeem koans.
Re:
Date: 2003-01-16 12:17 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-01-16 12:59 pm (UTC)the profundity of nonsense as salvation:
...like a joke without a punchline.
if you don't laugh, you're missing out.
if you only laugh, youre missing out.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-01-16 10:17 pm (UTC)Here's my amatuer Zen attempt: Let's say I want to teach that our perspectives as individuals are limited. Rather than saying that explicitly, the Zen way would be to say something like: "I am right. You are wrong. You are right. I am wrong." Of course I said something ridiculous and logically contradictory, but it causes the listener to experience the point rather than intellectualize it. They might ponder it awhile and finally end up realizing, "Yeah, it is the case that people can be both right and wrong at the same time. Our ability to know the truth is limited" or something similar. I've made my point, but I made it in a way that bypasses some of the intellectualizing and logic and gets at something a bit deeper. (My koan is not all that good though. Most koans I've worked with are much more interesting and do a better job than that!)
:)
Re:
Date: 2003-01-16 11:47 pm (UTC)