What good koans do you know?

31 responses total.

I'm not sure if it's a koan, but a teacher I used to have would
talk about drinking tea from an empty cup.

none: Could you describe the general form of a koan, and give an example
or two?  That way, in case I don't know any, I might be able to make
some up.

Well, this isn't very informative, but..

        _ ..
ko*an (ko' a n') n.  A riddle in the form of a paradox used in Zen
 Buddhism as an aid to meditation and a means of gaining intuitive
 knowledge.  [Japanese : ko, public + an, matter.]

Just pretend that the two dots are above the a.

You know, something like "If a tree falls in the forest and no one
is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

From a perfectly scientific stand point, the answer is no.  Sound waves are
not actual "Sound" until they are recieve by the ear.

Nah, the "tree falling in the forest" stuff is just european folk philosopy.

The most well known Koan is the old "what is the sound of one hand clapping."
In addition to "What is Zen? Zen is eating while eating, walking while 
walking, and sleeping while sleeping" and "Before you study Zen, a mountain is 
just a mountain.  After you have studied zen for some time, a mountain is
revealed to be  much more, for you becomre aware of the whole interconnection
of animals,  rocks, and trees that it consists of.  But once you have atained
enlighenment, a mountain is just a mountain."

Zen Koans tend to very simply explain the complexities of zen, and are 
therefore rather obscure to almost anyone who hasn't atained satori (Zen
enlightenment).  But they are fun.

the sound of an item being entered is the sound of me pressing keys.

 My staff has transformed itself into a dragon and swallowed the world!
Where are the rivers and the mountains and the great earth?

Right here.

Mystics mistrust the ability of language to apprehend reality. Reality exists
before language. What is a koan? What was the answer before the question was
asked? help conf" ."

was there an answer before it was answered.  isn't it possible that
before we answer a question, there is no answer?
th{_ink about it
  ^
  I
  I
line noise

it is possible, but if a question has no answer then the nonexistance of the
answer is the answer it self.

There is an answer before we answer a question, but perhaps not before 
we ask a question.  The asking of a question is the setting upon a path,
the path which is defined by the question.  But just as we can walk 
through a forest which has never been walked through before, we can set
out upon an intellectual path that does not exist when we set out upon it.
But we will never know that we have reached the end of the path unless 
there is a goal which we have attained.  Hence in order for us to know 
that we have found the answer to our question, we must know how to recognize 
that answer, hence it must have existed before we found it (but it may 
develop in the process of our search).  Likewise, as there are multiple
ways of walking through the forest that all come to the same place,
so might there be multiple paths to the same answer, and so in one sense
multiple answers within one.

"But why ask me, for I know nothing?" -- Peter Tork, "Head"

There is an answer before you ask a question, just as there is the forrest
and the destination before you even recognize the path to exist. The real
question for me, is does the answer really matter? As in the search for
the answer to the simple question "Why we exist?", does the answer really
matter? If it does not matter to me, it is not important. It does not matter
to me.

So it is not important.

To Joshua (Re #6): Hei mister, What do you mean by "the European
folk philosophy"? If this here conference presents the American
folk philosophy, it seems to be squalid indeed.

I'm not sure American have a very coherent folk phiosophy, since the 
rationalist scientist have such a strangelhold on things and want to

deny such things.  (I'm missing two s's, I wonder why?)

Don't be so touchy about American things, including philosophy. You told you
have a sense of humor, didn't you? I see you have an inquisitive eye. Let's get
more aquainted with each other? How about a 'US folk philosophy vs. Eur. f.
ph.' contest, or a duel on koans and mondoes (you choose the weapon)?

Oh, sorry, Valdimir, I wasn't getting snitty at you, I was getting 
snitty at the American acedemics.
I'm not sure what would constitute folk philosophy, and at any rate,
I'm not sure how good a commentator I would be on it, not exactly 
fitting the "mainstream" mode.  But let's give it a shot:  you start.

A preliminary question: what's a mainstream in your opinion?

Tricky one.  That's like "pornography" -- what is it?
I know I'm not in it.  But then, I think most people my generation claim 
not to be in the mainstream, so maybe I'm in the mainstream of
non-mainstreamers?  :-) Let's see... 80% of Americans claim to be Christian;
I'm not. 30-40% of Americans attend church regularly; I do. (Hee, hee, I am
church.) Almost all Americans claim to have a political party; I don't.
Americans watch TV, in the main (90% have tvs in their homes); I have a tv, but
don't watch it. I haven't seen EITHER ET or Jurassic Park, and have no
intention to do so (although I have seen Star Wars). I like Stone Temple Pilots
but NOT Pearl Jam or Nirvana. I have a Master's degree; most Americans don't. I
have nosteady income; most Americans do. I was called on a survey which listed
ten or so "fads" and asked me if they  were on the way in or the way out.  I'd
never even HEARD of most of them.

So, whatever the mainstream is, I don't think I'm in it.  :-)

That said, one bit of American folk philosophy (to get the ball rolling):
diseases are of two types:  those that will kill you within six months,
and those that you can cure if given enough medicine.

Is that the sort of thing you're looking for?

Dear Paul! We are congenial: I also hate movies, have no political views, have
a Doctors degree but have no steady income. I am glad that we met, but let's
continue on a private channel: this place is intended for public exchange,  I
guess. Perhaps this item produced little sound when being entered, but it at
least helped me me to find out an interesting man out there.

Eh, I don't care if people listen in, and I doubt they do, but if you want
to move off to mail, m me.  :-)
I'm glad you think I'm interesting.  You sound interesting as well.
Spacibo!

        The mainstream exists becuase there seem to be too many things
out there that people are supposed to be concernecd with.  Obviously
they can't be educated on every single issue and aspect of human life,
therefore the mainstream is there so that they may indulge without
investing any intellectual energy.  In the case of fashion, music,
food and art it is harmells enough, creating little more than hordes
of polyester wearing disco kings or flannel bedraped grunge 
 would be rebels.  It becomes more dangerous when it spills over
into morality and realigion and politics, where people should be 
expending mental energy instead of jumping on the band wagon.

Fascinating misspell on "harmless" there.
Otherwise, I agree, although there are plenty of kids in the ghetto
who have been shot and killed for their Fila jackets that might not 
agree that fashion is always "harmless", and plenty of anorexics who
might nitpick about food issues.
"It''s terrible to lose your mind, or to not have a mind" -- D Quayle

Re 25:  Speaking of our buddy Danny boy...anyone catch any of the
speeches at the "Christian Conference"?  I didn't see Quayle , but
readthat he was recommending the Republicans soften their stance on abortion...
ahem... too late. I'm sorry, but I can't take seriously a bunch of 
people who welcome G Gordon Liddy and Ollie North to speak, and give
them standing o's...


I'll stick with Clinton...what's my choice?  Dole? (scary).  I like
Clinton's social policies...even if he can't get them passed the
way he *really* wants to. ;-)

Gee, is this turning into a presidential debate?
I don't like Clinton.  I wish Hillary could run.

uh, who do you think you elected?:)

I didn't elect anyone.  I voted for the little guy (the lesser of 
three evils).
So I'm allowed to complain all I want.
(I voted, and my candidate didn't win.)

How do you think I feel?  The one I voted for came in FOURTH!

Hee, hee, at least my guy won a county somewhere.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss