Origins and development China Commenting on old cases Similarly, Zen kōan collections are public records of the notable sayings and actions of Zen masters and disciples attempting to pass on their teachings. For example, Di Gong'an ( 狄公案) is the original title of Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee, the famous Chinese detective novel based on a historical Tang dynasty judge. Gong'an was itself originally a metonym-an article of furniture involved in setting legal precedents came to stand for such precedents. Its literal meaning is the 'table' or 'bench' an of a 'magistrate' or 'judge' kung. Kōan/ gong'an thus serves as a metaphor for principles of reality beyond the private opinion of one person, and a teacher may test the student's ability to recognize and understand that principle.Ĭommentaries in kōan collections bear some similarity to judicial decisions that cite and sometimes modify precedents. The term is a compound word, consisting of the characters 公 "public official governmental common collective fair equitable" and 案 "table desk (law) case record file plan proposal."Īccording to the Yuan dynasty Zen master Zhongfeng Mingben ( 中峰明本 1263–1323), gōng'àn originated as an abbreviation of gōngfǔ zhī àndú ( 公府之案牘, Japanese kōfu no antoku-literally the àndú "official correspondence documents files" of a gōngfǔ "government post"), which referred to a "public record" or the "case records of a public law court" in Tang dynasty China. The Japanese term kōan is the Sino-Japanese reading of the Chinese word gong'an ( Chinese: 公案 pinyin: gōng'àn Wade–Giles: kung-an lit. I find it extremely intriguing how language effects the mind.A kōan ( / ˈ k oʊ æ n, - ɑː n/ KOH-a(h)n Japanese: 公案 Chinese: 公案 pinyin: gōng'àn Korean: 화두, romanized: hwadu Vietnamese: công án) is a story, dialogue, question, or statement which is used in Zen practice to provoke the "great doubt" and to practice or test a student's progress in Zen. Language determines so much of our ideas and thought processes. We can argue that there are probably lots of other "things" that we do not think about because we haven't developed the language to transmit those ideas. I don't know if those numbers are actually correct, but the point is that we can identify these nuances in life that are apparent in some cultures, but completely overlooked in others that do not have the words to identify them with. But there is a quote that says that the Egyptians have 50 words for sand and the Eskimos (Inuit is the PC term) have 100 words for snow. For example, in English, we have one word for "sand," and one word for "snow". This is why, in some cultures, ideas, emotions, and things exist that do not exist in cultures with different languages (or only exist in a vague, contextual way). These meanings rely heavily on the use of language. Things can only be what they are with our invented meaning attached to them. We will no longer be grasping at things that are not really there.Įvery single thing that we perceive to "know" has no inherent meaning. When we don’t restore that context or fabricate a new one, they will help us realizing this dreamlike nature of reality. Koan-stories and questions are - like the one hand clapping - removed from context. Thus shall you think of all this fleeting world:Ī flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream. Reality (or what we perceive as such) is like a set of mirrors reflecting images without anything actually there to be reflected other than the reflections of other mirrors. There is nothing graspable at the root of it, or at the end of it, or in it, or behind it. Phenomena appear and disappear only in the context of other phenomena, which only appear and disappear in the context of other phenomena, which only appear and disappear in the context of other phenomena, which only appear and disappear in the context of other phenomena etc. It says there are no graspable “things” but there are ungraspable “processes” only. In my understanding the Buddhist idea of codependent arising appears to take a position on this. Do we really know what matter is or time or consciousness? Are they graspable things or ungraspable processes? Some phenomena are not graspable “things” but they are ungraspable “processes”.Īs far as I can tell, the basic building blocks of the world we perceive are not fully understood. The clapping hand cannot be a clapping hand when the other hand isn’t joining. A rainbow cannot exist independently from the rain or the sunlight. The chair will be the chair and I will be me.īut there are exceptions. Our intuition says things exist when the context is removed or altered.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |