Here's the best description of Zen koans I've ever seen

Koans are an aspect of Zen Buddhism that I've always looked upon as wonderfully mysterious, yet unappealing. For in traditional Zen writings I'd read about a student being given a koan like "Does a dog have buddha nature?"

Then they struggled to figure out what the answer is, periodically having a get-together with their Zen master for him to see how they're doing, where usually he rejects their lame attempt at a response by hitting them on the head with his staff or screaming at them.

Not exactly something that sounds either pleasant or productive to me. 

But near the end of his book, Original Love, which I finished reading today, Zen master Henry Shukman presents a view of koans which makes more sense than any other description of koan practice that I've come across.

First Shukman describes koans in this fashion.

Koan training is an ingenious method for conveying the experience of awakening, and for learning to live it more thoroughly, in a rich, deep life informed by love.

Most koans are about things. A dog. A tree. A bridge. A flower. Autumn leaves. Somehow, in Zen, these ordinary things of the world contain the deepest truths. If these truths are explored through koans, then the most ordinary things can awaken us.

...What is the sound of one hand? Stop the sound of the distant bell. Make Mount Fuji take three steps. A meditator runs a koan through their mind as they sit, until they become absorbed in the phrase.

...What is the sound of one hand? A nonsense question. Yet if we refrain from getting into problem-solving mode, and don't try to unravel it like a puzzle, then we can allow the strange question to hover in our minds, like a full moon rising in the evening sky as sunset is darkening into night. There the hazy moon is, floating low in the sky. So the koan floats in the mind. We wait and see -- does it provoke a call, an ease, a quiet? Does it spark curiosity?

Then Shukman shares a guided meditation on Exploring a Koan. This sort of thing isn't in the traditional literature about koans. I'm grateful Shukman describes his approach to koan practice, as it is appealingly doable.

In this meditation we'll explore sitting with a classic koan. This one actually has two formulations: "This" and "What is this." We'll try out both in this sit. A key aspect of meditating with a koan is not to try to answer or resolve it. It may seem paradoxical, but instead of seeking a response, see if you can just state the koan in your mind and simply observe what effect the word or phrase has on the quality or clarity of meditation.

As with any other sit, start by finding a comfortable seated position. Let your whole body relax. Let your body be balanced, so all parts can relax downward around the central column of the upper body. (If you're reclining, then give yourself entirely to the support beneath you.) The spine has its own intrinsic capacity to hold itself upright. Let it do that by itself. Let your body be balanced around it, so everything else can drape and hang, like rigging gone slack on a tall ship at rest in a bay.

Feel the swells of breath rolling gently through you, slightly lifting and lowering the hull of your lower trunk. Let the rise and fall of the breath soothe you.

Now sense the space within which your body sensations are appearing.

Tune into the space within which sounds are arising. Note that they are really one space, one great space. 

Now, as presence starts to develop and you begin to inhabit your experience here and now, gently bring in the koan. Start by saying in your mind the word This... This... on each exhalation. 

Let the word come gently, quietly. You inhale... and then exhale, and in your mind you add the word This... to the longer, relaxing release of the exhalation. 

This... This... This 

Don't try to do anything special. Don't seek anything special. Just imagine that there is nothing more to be found. All that there is, is here right now. There is nothing but This... This

Again, don't look for anything. Just rest in exactly what is happening right now. This... This

How does it feel to hear the word This? Notice when you say it if whether the word has any effect on you that you can detect. This...

If the practice is feeling interesting or is arousing curiosity or appreciation, then stay with the feeling and continue as you are. This... This

If the practice is not particularly engaging, or if you feel like you have done enough of it for now, then we can shift to a different formulation. 

Now, in the same way as before, on each exhalation, add the words What is this...

Don't think of the words as a question to which you need to find an answer. Imagine that there is no answer and that the words are only a phrase. What is this...

Gently, quietly, and tenderly, pour this little phrase into the stream of your exhalation. 

Inhale ... and exhale: What is this...

What is this... What is this...

No straining, no striving, no answering. Just the words. Just the phrase. What is this...

Once again, see how it feels in your body and mind when you add this question into the space of your meditation Utter the phrase in your mind, and taste any aftereffects of saying it.

What is this...

And when you feel ready, drop the phrase and rest in silence and stillness for a few moments. Then bring some movement into your toes and fingers, your limbs, and your spine. Open your eyes and stretch. Come back to the space you're in, ready for whatever is next.

Thank you for being open to trying this.

Comments

[Ron E.]

With his Koan meditation Shukman describes well how the Koan brings one to the present moment.

Zen and Chan practices along with the seemingly ludicrous statements that Zen teachers come out with can infuriate and cause one to dismiss their utterances, but when they are seen in the light of enabling the student to see that he/she is generally living in a thought constructed world and not the real world as revealed constantly via the senses then a Koan (and seemingly ludicrous statements) can be understood for the devices they are that help one to come back to now – and perhaps realise how we mentally live in the past or the future through what is little more than thought constructs.

I think Shukman’s teaching here is very relative to the ubiquitous who/what am I inquiry. Quite a pertinent post.

[um]

>> And when you feel ready, drop the phrase and rest in silence and stillness for a few moments.<<

The whole process as described reminds me of simran followed by Bhajan.

[Appreciative Reader]

I'd like to offer some criticism here, if I may, Brian. "Criticism", not as in dissing, or dismissing, but as in clearly evaluating this Koan meditation. By asking: What exactly are we appreciating here? Sure it's doable; but why should anyone do it, for what reason? ...Not rhetorical questions, implying a negative answer: but open-ended questions, that demand straight answers, without which I'm not prepared to either appreciate or endorse this thing. (Heh, for what such is worth, my appreciation or my endorsement!)

----------

Here's what I mean. You guys at RSSB had/have your Simran and Bhajan, right? So why would anyone do it, for what reason?

One answer is, the theological extravagances that RSSB teaches. Let's not evaluate that, not at this stage, but instead just take note of that answer.

A second answer would be what some claim, the extravagant experiences. That might be one answer, sure: except that further opens up a second question, which is, what exactly are those alleged experiences, even if true, in aid of? That answers to those two questions would make for a second possible answer.

And a third answer would be what long-time meditators following this tradition report on the ground. It could be a general centeredness, it might be general absorption, it might be better clarity in everyday affairs, it might be mindfulness, or it might be something more specific and more dramatic, whatever.

Having taken note of all these three (possible) answers, the next step would, methinks, be to evaluate them. Evaluate them threadbare, firstly in terms of whether we even buy those answers. And also, in terms of whether, given what they allegedly deliver, we actually want any part of it.

...Again, none of this is to either accept or reject RSSB meditation, not at this stage. This is only to clearly criticize it, as in clearly evaluate it. Then after that comes either wholehearted acceptance, or else provisional trial, or outright rejection.

----------

Likewise every other meditation technique. (I'm resisting the impulse to discuss my own particular techniques here. I know I could clearly discuss this as it relates to those techniques: but one example, the above, will suffice, I think, to discuss the process of clear evaluation, so need for me to take up server space by discussing those specifics.)

----------

Likewise this Zen Koan meditation thing, surely? What exactly does it deliver, this particular meditation? That doesn't seem clear to me, not from this excerpt.

Ron, you suggest that maybe this mediation helps the practitioner to actually realize that they're living in a thought stream, rather than the here-and-now. Fair enough, if so. If so, we can next ask what exactly this will achieve, and whether we want any of it: and basis that, go ahead and either try this out, or reject it.

But that's just conjecture, right? (A conjecture I fully concur with, by the way, it does seem likely. But it's still conjecture, even if I personally agree with it.) Does it actually promise to deliver that, this meditation? Are there any practitioners, that have clearly discussed what they've got out of this? Any masters, who clearly state that doing this will deliver such and such? Surely there are?

Does this book clearly spell that out, Brian? If it does, then please share! It would be great to clearly know and understand that.

----------

Again, not being in the least dismissive. Being critical, only in the constructive sense of insisting on knowing clearly what this is about, actually; and refusing to be taken in by obscurantist just-do-it-for-the-next-fifteen-years-and-you'll-find-out open-ended hints.

Personally, I'd love to give Zazen a fair trial, given the opportunity. One day, maybe. (But again, not before clearly discussing all of this first, should the opportunity to actually try Zazen out ever present itself. I've never done that with any of my traditions and techniques, that I follow, never once committed to a fair trial without first clearly knowing what that trial entails, and what it promises, and what one might expect from it personally.)

[Appreciative Reader]

Also, it occurs to me after having already posted the comment above, that I actually don't know the answer to this rather basic question: Is it the case that Zen necessarily teaches both Zazen and Koan practice (much like RSSB teaches both Simran and Bhajan, or Theravada teaches both Anapana and Vipassana?) Or is it the case that only some schools teach Koan practice, and not other schools of Zen?

Does your book provide a clear answer to this question of factuality, Brian? Or might you, or maybe you, Ron, or anyone else here, know the answer from your own general reading and/or experience?

Be great if you could share that answer, if any of you do know.

[Jimmy]

I like meditation before bed. I get into that sleepy drowsy state then choose my goal for the nights adventure. Presently I'm focusing on the inner Sikh Golden Temple. The Golden Temple idea was brought here by a Sikh cosmic traveler. The pool around it is called the pool of immortality. When one dips in it on the inner he is well rewarded.

[um]

When a person hits a surface with a stick, the sound depends on the surface.
Hitting a gong is different from hitting a wall ...or a sentient being ...hahaha

When we speak, what we say depends on the audience.

In the same way spiritual practices and psychotherapy, can never be properly understood without the circumstances that made them appear.

Many if not all practices that are available to day carry the burden of an social, cultural, regional stamp of long bygone days..

Peter Kingsley for example addresses this issue in his book "reality" stating that one cannot understand Greek mystery schools without proper insight in the language etc of those days.
And The Dalai Lama made it clear that "Tibetan" Buddhism can only survive in Tibet the place were it originated.

Zen, Chan and the many spiritual schools in India could never have originated in Europe. The very Idea of "sitting" as an practice could never have been developed outside asia and it was not.

Further more practices did not arise out of the blue, they were ALWAYS and answer to a particular REGIONAL and/or/ INDIVIDUAL problem, question etc to deal with them in an "universal" perspective cannot but make things seen in a distorted way.

Outside the places where these practices were born they easily become artificial, dead copies, ceremonial replicas.

These practices cannot be separated from their narrative and these narratives are regional cultural impressed.

Before 1965 nobody knew about Zen etc, or shamanism, sweat hut ceremonies etc.
or ayahuasca .....you did not need them then, you do not need them now.

If there is a creator that wanted you to live a Zen life I would have had you boirn in Japan ...it is sad but Europe has killed and eradicated all their own teachings and practices in their desire to look at OTHERS ...and became Christians

Christianity has been a curse for europe and turned its people in missionaries ...

[um]

And .....ask yourself .... if you would not have HEARD of meditation etc etc, would you be interested in it now?

Are you a SEEKER?

If so WHAT do you seek and WHY?

Forget for a moment about the religion you were born in, your culture, your education,
just sit with yourself and try to be honest

How much are you "walking with OTHERS" behind this or that Pied Piper of Hamelin,?
If the answer is NO ...than be courages..

Nobody of us, is born in need of an practice an need of an narrative. and certainly not one that is "cultural body foreign"

Stop walking around in uniforms that were created in Asia for a good reason not your reason.

[Ron E.]

A.R. Quite legitimately I guess there always has to be questions when embarking on this meditation – or as I would put it) the inquiry into who/what I am. But there perhaps comes a time when one simply ‘has a go’. This initial inquiry is naturally always entered into with the notion of ‘what’s in it for me?’ or as you put it: ‘What exactly does it deliver, this particular meditation?

Well, (IMV) it’s somewhat a paradox as what we are seeking, we already are – as in the example of a wave seeking the ocean – and I reckon it’s ‘hidden’ due to the fact that the ‘self’ or ‘me’ concept sees life and everything through this self-constructed veil. The aim (if you like), of Zen etc., is to see through this illusion and live with things as they are other than through the various concepts – the views, ideas opinions etc., that always reflect our particular learnt conditioning.

Our interpretations of what we experience always stem from our particular conditioning, rarely seeing ‘what is’ but how we habitually believe it to be, through our fears, desires and wishes etc., – which in Buddhist terms is the cause of suffering. The term ‘present moment’ attempts to describe this seeing before the overlay of conceptual thought.

As I understand it, the self doesn’t (cannot) disappear, it’s just nor taken so seriously or believed to define reality – but of course, it is needed to function in our mentally fashioned world of thinking, projecting and planning. Aims and goals according to Zen are said to fade away, just leaving, as they say, ‘just this’, this ‘present moment’ – life as it is before signs and symbols appear!

[Ron E.]

Um. In many ways, they are nor too different whether it’s in the Mahayana, Theravada traditions, the many mindfulness teachings, Advaita, Vipassana, even the western esoteric teachings, they all revolve around settling the ever-busy mind so apart from cultural overlays, they all share a similar foundation.

I see the transfer of eastern teachings to the west as just the natural evolution of ideas and concepts. In many ways the rigid interpretations of the Abrahamic religions from the middle east, probably lost much of their ‘meditative’ or ‘sitting’ characteristics perhaps assigning anyone who had ‘Zen-like’ understanding as witches or evil. Buddhism changed when it travelled from India to China and later Japan with their different cultures as it has in the West.

The reason that "Tibetan" Buddhism can only survive in Tibet the place where it originated, is down to the fact that it is saturated with the pre-Buddhist Bon religion along with the many beliefs in spirits and animistic beliefs. Whereas the basis of Buddhist practice stems from the Four Noble Truths which consist of suffering, its cause, its cessation, and the path to end suffering – concepts that any-one in any culture can align with.

[Jim Sutherland]

When exploring the inner Universe, as a Fractal, Meditation is the only reasonable technique to control how deep in to the Whole Creator to go , as individual fractals, because if we can’t control how deep we go, such as when being controlled by psychedelic tripping, we not only are unable to control how , or when to return to normal, but we very well could be trapped in to experiencing other fractal’s past , present, or future lives than our own.

That could really permanently damage brain circuits , ending in inescapable night mares!

[Appreciative Reader]

Ron, thanks for your comment, and for sharing your perspective.

I agree with what you say about not taking the self seriously, as opposed to completely losing the sense of it. Because that latter, even if it were a thing, points more towards psychosis than actual understanding, if I may telegraph in very brief an argument I've found myself articulating in more detail on more than one occasion in comments here.

But there's two portions of your perspective that I find myself wondering about, and indeed disagreeing with. I'd like to briefly discuss them now, if I may:

----------

First, this: the part where you say, "what we are seeking, we already are".

I understand where you're coming from, and obviously I've heard this said, by many, to the extent it's something of a cliche. Like most truisms, it's actually true, in as much as the "seeking" is often of something outside of oneself.

However, when you go to the core of it, I'm afraid this perspective is not quite, well, not quite as wise as it seems at first glance, it seems to me. Because, well, what is it that one actually seeks? Now there can be no universal, generalized answer to that. But at one level, I'd say the answer would be this --- and it is the answer I myself would provide --- the answer to the question, "What does one seek?", would be, "Clear understanding of what is." Maybe accompanied with experiential realization of such, if that is legitimately and actually an inherent a part of such understanding; but what one actually seeks is clear understanding of reality and of oneself, or as clear as one can make it, and without slipping into fantasy and delusion and wishful thinking.

Seen in that light, that answer is actually meaningless. Either that, or else it is a subtle begging-the-question that slips in an advaitic-ish answer, with zero defense of such.

----------

The second part is where you say this: "there perhaps comes a time when one simply ‘has a go’." And also this: "Aims and goals according to Zen are said to fade away, just leaving, as they say, ‘just this’, this ‘present moment’"

Sure, I agree. That is, I can see the necessity of "letting go" --- a bit different than just "having a go" --- as part of one's practice, of anything that requires absorption for reaching true excellence, be it working out, or engaging in research, or indeed meditation. And also, and separately: I can see how on understanding of the nature of self, one might end up just "having a go", as you say --- or else maybe doing the opposite of that, and 'not having a go'?! --- as one realizes the nature of reality and the nature of our self.

But I simply don't see why any of that might explain, or excuse, the lack in clarity of what exactly someone's out to "sell", as it were, at the stage of actually selling it. When you ask a "teacher", What exactly is the purpose of this whole thing you're teaching, and how exactly do your methods lead to an actualization of that purpose? When you ask a teacher that, then I don't see why, at that stage, clear straightforward answers should not be forthcoming. Unless it is all delusion, and/or charlatanry; unless it is all a putting up an appearance of wisdom, an appearance that seeks to portray itself as more profound than it actually is.

And that part is where I find myself disagreeing with Zen. Even as I find the ...the austerity as it were, the no-nonsense nature of the practice of Zazen itself, kind of appealing. At heart it does not seem to me much different than the Anapana-Vipassana combo, not after you've gone beyond the basics of it.

----------

Incidentally, I turned to Google for answer to the question of factuality I'd asked here, and I think a clear answer does emerge. It seems that Koan practice is NOT necessarily always taught in Zen. It isn't quite like Simran-and-Bhajan, or Anapana-and-Vipassana. Apparently, only some schools teach it. It's a niche thing, apparently, within Zen, that only some teach, not all Zen schools.

That last was basis a quick perusal, not very detailed, of like eight or ten links that Google threw up just now, including these two:
https://www.ancientdragon.org/zazen-as-inquiry/ ; and https://www.thecontemplativelife.org/zazen .

[Ron E.]

A.R. I think your question and answer: - "What does one seek?", would be, "Clear understanding of what is.” is spot on. Perhaps the problem arises as to what ‘what is’ is and paradoxically, in thinking about it, ‘what is’ becomes obscured behind the barrage of thoughts. I see ‘what is’ as being an obvious and simple concept. The actuality of ‘what is’ (of course not the concept, not the word) but the simply ‘being’ aware in this present moment.

Sorry, but here comes a Zen story, a story pointing to the now or present moment: -
A pupil asked “How do I enter Zen?’ “Do you hear the sound of that mountain steam?’ replied the master. “Yes”, said the pupil. “Then enter Zen from there.” The pupil said “What if I couldn’t hear the mountain stream? What would you have said then?’ “Enter Zen from there,” replied the master.

Whether hearing or not hearing, the important thing is listening, perceiving before the mind weaves its usual countless habitual responses. A trite example: when out driving it’s possible to get to one’s destination and not remember anything of the journey having been immersed in, quite often, just a stream of thought. I feel we miss much of life this way. One injunction I recall is ‘just notice’ – which of course is what any of the mindfulness teaching espouse (in their own particular way).

Can’t think of anything else to add so apologies for someone else’s description of ‘what is’. Joan Tolifson talks of the simplicity of ‘what is’: - “Being just this here-now-aware-presence, this present experiencing, is utterly simple, uncomplicated and easy. It requires no effort, no practice, no years of study. It is effortlessly, unavoidably, always already happening. Hearing, seeing, breathing, touching, tasting, awaring, being—simply this—the sounds of traffic, the ever-changing sensations in the body, the taste of tea—the utter simplicity of what is before we think about it—this is obvious, uncomplicated, absolutely easy, impossible to doubt. You can doubt what it is or why it is, but not that it is.”

[Appreciative Reader]

No no, enjoyed your Zen story, Ron; and appreciated reading you perspective!

Your down-to-earth perspective makes a great deal of sense. Put simply, I guess what that all points to, what in fact all of that translates to, is mindfulness. That, and an appreciation of what lies behind it, the nature of the self, all that: but the experiential part of it, the *lived* part of it, that you talk about, as distinct from the abstraction of it, is, well, mindfulness I guess?

(Correct me, though, if perchance I've got hold of the wrong end of it here!)

[Mike Carris]

Practicing Koans and realizing Koans have nothing to do with anything written above.