What a dick...

I like this. It's as if the adept learns from the apparent sage or apparent Book that there is no sage and that there is no Book. I also agree that there's a cheap form of spirituality. There's the idea of the prayer that it is like pushing a button on the God machine. Then the God-machine squirts out wealth, health, victory in battle. Of course we want these things, but it's a bit strange to worship the same being that treat like a vending machine. Affirming this world as a whole, stubbornly, seems higher and deeper. "Naked I came and naked I return. Blessed be the name of the Lord (Reality, Life, etc.)"

That's how I see it too. I posted that Koan on Dharmawheel forum, and interestingly the first response on there was along the lines of 'what a dick....' A lot of people thought the young fellow had been insulting to the old man, but that isn't really the intention of the story, as you have discerned.

Moment ruining book burner... I get it, the world can burn, nothing is of any value besides the ideological commitments, and all those screaming in horror are just ignorant, deluded, and don't see the way.

Furthermore buddy says that he's happy with what he knows now, and couldn't possibly conceive of its improvement through a book, or any other means? Really?

Oh, I see the hidden wisdom in all that... I'm so far along the path!

I can see what the story is trying to say, and I can see what the younger man in the story was trying to communicate, which is a deep and important message....

and yet.....

I find myself agreeing with Wosret. The story, and the person in the story, are so concerned with their philosophies that they lose sight of what really matters - people, and their feelings.

I think it's a good example of why, although I am very attracted to Buddhism, Zen is my least favourite variety of it. Sometimes it seems to value harshness and blindness to the feelings of others, in the interests of being in some sense 'spiritually pure'.

Poor old Mu-nan. It's a bit silly to be so attached to an old book. But if we can't be tolerant of older people's harmless sentimental attachments then it's a pretty poor lookout.

If it were about an old book, then I would agree! What I took it to signify, was the importance of the inner meaning, rather than the external form. Like many koans, it is dramatized, but it is not about being cruel to an old guy.

The exclamation 'what are you saying?' is to remind Mu-nan of the importance of the fundamental tenet of Zen, which is 'direct pointing' and not reliant on words and letters (notwithstanding the voluminous literature which Zen has produced!)

The story, and the person in the story, are so concerned with their philosophies that they lose sight of what really matters - people, and their feelings.

On the contrary, it is Mu-Nan who is concerned with his philosophies, signified by his attachment to a book.

Reminds me of:

Can't see the connection, myself, but then, such stories are open to many interpretations.

Explanations notwithstanding, I agree with @andrewk. I understand the point but the presentation puts me off. The feeling that the teaching character is arrogant doesn't jive with my sense of what spirituality is all about. On that score, it brings to mind some of the darker uses of Zen such as when it was taught during WWII as a means to help Japanese soldiers overcome their aversion to slaughtering the enemy.

Well, that's a shame. I did realise the story was dramatic, but what appealed to me was the idea of cutting through the inessentials. I will take heed of what kinds of things to post.

The pupil teaches the master 'presence'. What the master is saying shows his attachment to the past, contrary, presumably, to the very teachings he seeks to preserve. The pupil demonstrates the preservation of the teachings in his own person by his rejection of the value of un-lived teachings. His response is a great kindness in both reawakening the master, and reassuring him that the tradition is still alive. Un-lived teachings are nothing but a burden to the world.

Burn all the books then?

Oh yeah! They're suicide bombers too! The first ones, the original inspiration, and true cause of all subsequent terror events! They hate our freedom, materialism, and "unlived" knowledge. They must take it upon themselves to awaken the world by destroying the things we care about.

Well, that's a shame. I did realise the story was dramatic, but what appealed to me was the idea of cutting through the inessentials. I will take heed of what kinds of things to post. — Wayfarer

Cutting through inessentials. Zen exists because it was part of Bushido. There was some sword play involved.

Zen Budhhists vary from the older sort in that they don't believe the pathways set out by Buddha are necessary for attaining enlightenment. They believed it can just sort of spontaneously happen. BAM!

I agree with them that people can bungle themselves getting all tied up in some asshole's writings. But I also agree with Zen's critics that it's attractive to some to believe that applying oneself to a path isn't worthwhile. Sometimes facing things about yourself and the world is difficult. A person may strongly desire to instead insulate themselves, perhaps by going on and on about racism to keep themselves from ever noticing what really going on down in there.

Burn all the books then? — Wosret

No, burn all the second hand inspirational psychobabble peddled by folks who don't practice what they preach. But only the best disciple should burn them in each case. It's not permission to burn someone else's valued traditions, only your own.

Burn all the books then? Lol.

Writing as one who often defends religious belief on these forums, and cops quite a lot of stick for so doing, I had thought that the iconoclasm of this anecdote would appeal to the contributors here. But instead, sentiment, or manners, prevailed - 'how inconsiderate!' But with no insight into what is at stake - why the story is told, what is important about it.

Zen exists because it was part of Bushido. — Mongrel

Not at all. 'Zen' is the Japanese version of the Chinese 'Ch'an', which pre-dated the absorption of Buddhism by the warrior classes in Japan by centuries.

It's a bit silly to be so attached to an old book. — andrewk

Not...really?

Writing as one who often defends religious belief on these forums, and cops quite a lot of stick for so doing, I had thought that the iconoclasm of this anecdote would appeal to the contributors here. But instead, sentiment, or manners, prevailed - 'how inconsiderate!' But with no insight into what is at stake - why the story is told, what is important about it. — Wayfarer

Eh... Rumi says you never escape shadow. Seeing the story in a mundane or vulgar way is part of the shadow created by too much piety. I'm not saying you're pious at all. I'm just saying it's there.. don't you sense that? Westerners sometimes start generating something kind of puke-worthy when they get their hands on asian religion. Poking fun at it just pops the balloon.

Not at all. 'Zen' is the Japanese version of the Chinese 'Ch'an', which pre-dated the absorption of Buddhism by the warrior classes in Japan by centuries. — Wayfarer

Yes, I know it originated in China. You could have taken my comment the way I intended.. that Zen exists today because it was embraced by the Samurai who ruled for a while. But you chose to bring me shadow. We do that for each other. We're so nice.

I would enjoy it... if it were about an individual casting off a burden they didn't need.

But that's closer to the angtheist's (or religious dogmatist) demand to wipe anything which is not them out of existence-- yes, burn the book you've not read and wipe all ideas from the world because it simply could not contain any wisdom or be helpful to anyone. Then there won't be those pesky people who are different than you.

The anecdote goes against its (at least by your reading) own point. To be at ease with one beliefs is not destroy what you do not need (and is deeply important to others), but to know that you do not need it, so you do not feel compelled to "enforce" your ease upon others. The person truly at ease with their outlook wouldn't have been threatened by the book. They would have kept it for those to whom it might be important.

Poking fun at it just pops the balloon. — Mongrel

So we can go back to business-as-usual, right?

They would have kept it for those to whom it might be important. — Willow

The point of the story was about 'attachment to externals', so if he had kept it, there would have been no story to tell.

Yeah, good thing no one burnt the book it was in in order to one up out-enlighten someone.

The act of burning the book is external too-- the obsession with burning all the unnecessary ideas. He's attached to externals either way. So do we protect the things important to the people around us or do we destroy them?

I do agree with unenlightened's reading though. In that context, it works.

I am truly enlightened as I failed to read the OP. That's what wise people do bitch.

So we can go back to business-as-usual, right? — Wayfarer

Or go visit the ocean at the end of the lane. Whatever.

Rumi says shut the fuck up.

I will take heed of what kinds of things to post. — Wayfarer

No, don't be put off! You have set off an interesting discussion on philosophy of religion that, unlike almost all such discussions on philosophy forums, isn't just in some way or other about the existence or non-existence of God. I call that a major achievement!

Continuing the discussion: The 'direct pointing' aspect is part of what I mean when I refer to Zen as seeming harsh and uncaring. So many of the incidences of direct pointing related in koans appear to involve cruelty - making somebody kneel outside in the snow for three days before letting them into the monastery, hitting fidgety meditation students with a stick, dashing out of somebody's hand an offering that is made. The use of the term 'master' for a spiritual teacher also brings to mind authoritarian and military analogies. I don't think the Dalai Lama gets called Master does he?

Maybe I've been reading the wrong books and listening to the wrong podcasts, but I just don't recall coming across Zen materials that have any role for compassion. This contrasts with some other streams of Buddhism in which compassion is primary.

I think there is much wisdom that can be learned from Zen, as there is much wisdom that can be learned from Nietzsche (another somewhat harsh worldview). I try to imbibe that wisdom as best I can. But I would not wish either Zen or Nietzsche to be my guiding philosophy.

A question then - does the concept of bodhisattva get much airplay in Zen? As I understand it, the whole point of the bodhisattva concept is compassion for the unenlightened. A bodhisattva vows not to attain Nirvana until they can enable all others to do so too.

iconoclasm of this anecdote — Wayfater

Contrasted with unenlightened's reading, I can't help but feel there's a lot of Western individualism going in the responses here.

Most seemed to have approached the story as if both men are of separate traditions. As if the book burning amounts to the victory of one individual's ideas over another.

Viewed instead as a tradition held by both, it makes a lot more sense. The burning is a reminder the tradition is lived rather than just laid down in text.

Yeah... but buddy was all like "see this hand written, one of a kind generational book, that was passed on to me by my teacher in a seven generation long tradition, which served as a pivotal character defining moment in my life? This book gives deep insights into the characters and minds of the past seven masters, and I painstakingly left my own mark, after years of work and consideration. I hope that it is useful to you, and even a fraction as meaningful as it was to me, it is incredibly valuable, nay priceless... if I had anything close to a child..."

And the other guy was all like "oh yeah... into the flames", and then responded sarcastically to his cries of shock and anguish.

Being in the same tradition doesn't stop buddy from coming off as an antisocial ideologue bully.

But the old dying man was sort of pushing it on him... like: "No no! You have to take it and show respect for the sacred documentation!"

Where's mcdoodle. Somebody should write a play.

I know, but he could have at least pretended to like it, and if at all possible, have the old man witness a variety of comical and inappropriate uses for it, degrading it over time. Gotta stretch it out over time, savor it.