Not knowing is most intimate -- a Zen koan that I grasped instantly

Zen master Henry Shukman's The Way app, which I embarked on in January of this year and have been enjoying ever since, contains guided meditations that include koans. 

Pleasingly, Shukman's view of koans isn't that they are a spiritual puzzle to be solved, but simply messages to consider and see what effect the koan has on us. A few days ago he introduced a koan that I was unfamiliar with: Not knowing is most intimate.

Two Zen teachers meet; one is carrying his bags. “Where are you going?”, inquires the first teacher.

“I’m going on a pilgrimage”, the other teacher responds.

“What’s the purpose of pilgrimage?” asks the first teacher.

“I don’t know.” he responds.

“Not knowing is most intimate.” Replies the first teacher.

Some Googling revealed that this is a much-discussed koan. For example, see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

I've just taken a quick look at those links because I agree with Shukman's approach to koans. There isn't a right or wrong answer to them. There's just how our own mind responds to them. 

Maybe this is an indication that I'm well on the road to enlightenment. Maybe this is an indication that I'm a pathetic Zen imposter.

Regardless, as soon as I heard Shukman share the koan on his The Way app, I understood what Not knowing is most intimate meant to me. Some additional pondering hasn't changed that first impression.

When I know something, whether it is part of the physical world outside of me or part of the mental world inside of me, there's necessarily a certain distance between my knowing and that thing. I know what 7 times 8 is, 56.

(I've heard that young students today in the United States aren't required to memorize the multiplication table; if so, that's disappointing; I use this knowledge a lot.)

That answer, a bit of knowledge, is something that exists within my mind. It comes and goes, depending on whether I need to know what 7 times 8 is. Same applies to everything else that I know which isn't a habitual action, like how to ride a bicycle, that has become part of my innate physical action repertoire.

This means that knowing brings me close to the object of knowledge, but leaves me at some distance from it. I could say that knowing is intimate, but not most intimate. 

That's reserved for my not-knowing. When I don't know something, this truly is most intimate. I don't have to grasp anything. My absence of knowledge is right there, closer to me than anything else could be, an intimacy of ignorance. 

I can forget or misplace objects of knowledge. My not-knowing is very different. It is part and parcel of my consciousness, the nothingness that forms a backdrop to my knowing. 

When I drove to downtown Salem for my 4:30 pm Tai Chi class today, I didn't know where I was going to find a parking place. This absence of knowledge was crystal clear to me. I didn't need to exert any effort. I didn't worry that I might be wrong. Not knowing where I'd park my car was the most intimate bit of non-knowledge in my mind -- along with countless other things that I don't know.

Sure, it takes some effort to consciously realize something that I don't know. However, the not-knowing itself is completely effortless. It isn't something that I acquire. It is something that is so intimate an aspect of my consciousness that to even call it an aspect is going too far. 

Not-knowing is the same as being for me. The sense of "I am" carries with it an inescapable "I am not." Likewise, all that I know rests on the foundation of what I don't know. Pleasingly, it takes effort for me to know. Not-knowing is effortless, since it is the most intimate quality I possess. Or more accurately, fail to possess.

Comments

[manjit]

Hey Brian, do you also "not know" an answer to any of the questions I've raised recently about your lack of integrity?

Never mind, I never once for a second imagined you would address them. In fact, I was near 100% certain you wouldn't. Couldn't.

That, ironically, would require integrity.

A kinda chicken and the egg scenario.

As you were.

[Ron E.]

@ Brian. “There isn't a right or wrong answer to them. There's just how our own mind responds to them.”

Yes, indeed – it’s not then about right or wrong but of seeing how the mind operates with its contents (thoughts etc.) in meeting each moment, each thought, letting them come and letting them go without examining them or bringing extra analytical thoughts to play. It is said that this practice of "not knowing" becomes a gateway to genuine intimacy with life as it is (as opposed to how we think or desire it to be.)

“Not knowing is most intimate.” Replies the first teacher. Perhaps ‘most intimate’ points to an awareness of mind that is direct and unencumbered by extraneous thinking.

I recall another ‘not knowing’ koan: - Emperor Wu eagerly asked the great master:
“I have established monasteries, printed sutras, and decreed the ordination of countless
monks. What merits have I attained from all these deeds?”
Bodhidharma answered, “No merit.”
Confused, the emperor asked, “What, then, is the highest truth in Buddhism?” “Emptiness. Nothing holy.”
“Who is it that faces me?”
“Don’t know.”

Here Bodhidharma introduces emptiness, emptiness in that everything is empty of independent inherent existence where we tend to invest everything with a particular identity when in fact there is none. To realise emptiness expresses ‘not knowing’.

Of course, all not to be confused with the practical knowledge needed in everyday life, but more to do with realising the impermanence of thought, mind, opinions, beliefs, life and so on where clinging to them as something permanent and real creates suffering.

[sant64]

I'm reading RSSB's Spiritual Letters for the 1st time. It gives an interesting picture of Jaimal Singh (not literally, as he was never photographed).

In virtually every letter, Jaimal urges Sawan and other satsangis to meditate every day. But Jaimal never says anything about the 2.5 hours of meditation that's now RSSB dogma. Not even once.

The dogma of 2.5 hours of daily meditation isn't mentioned in any of Shiv Dayal Singh's writings either. This leads me to conclude that 2.5 hours is something that Sawan Singh originated.

Also, Jaimal comments about a visitor to the Dera who wanted initiation but was denied. Why did Jaimal deny him? "How could I initiate him? I don't know anything about his character."

Wait, I thought RSSB gurus had mystic powers to discern "marked souls" by merely looking at their foreheads? If Jaimal Singh didn't have that psychic ability, why were RSSB gurus like Charan staging "walk-through" events where they pretended to have that power?

I have no comment on whatever the essay says about Zen, as I didn't read it.

[manjit]

"Another example of one tenth is... one tenth of your day (24 hours) is 2 1/2 hours. As Sikhs we have the practice of dedicating one tenth of our day, 2 1/2 hours (Amrit Vela) to devotion and meditation to set ourselves each day. As Guru Ram Das descibed it, rise before the coming of the dawn and bathe and meditate on God's Name and inspire others to do this."
https://www.sikhiwiki.org/index.php/Dasvandh

[um]

@ Sant 64

Maybe Manjit's reaction is the answer to your question.

BJS was a Sikh and had to present the teaching to the people in the Punjab and in such an way that it would fit in their religious traditions ..reason why later his successor would address the Christians from the west in a christian way.

Since the advent in Agra, there is much changed and these changes can be understood by looking at the audience that had to be addressed. Just think of the role of association with a living teacher!. Sant Mat like many of these traditions are based upon regular face to face contact and that is impossible for growing numbers and for people nit living in close vicinity.

Swami told a man that he had to come EVERY day and if he could not manage to do so, Every two days, once week, once a month and so on ..it the end he satisfied the issue by saying .."see to it that you come at least once a year"

Spread in Sant Mat literature one can find many references to the importance of this close contact with a Guru ..maybe it should be said that the whole building of sant mat stands on the personal relation with a teacher, reason why it is also called guru bhakti yoga. Vaguely I remember to have read that MSS compared the situation of people in the west with following an correspondence course and among the Indian Satsangi's in this country I imagine to have heard the whisper that those initiated here are in fact not initiated at all ..{do not take what I write to serious}.

My point ..it seems that these rules beside being an adaptation to Sikh tradition are also an compensation for the lack of close contact ..less contact => more hours meditation in order to open up the mind.

In those early days, it seems "normal" that all initiates very soon can hear the sound and focus on it...personally I do believe that many if not most in the west do NOT hear that sound or even its reflection ...not even the owner of this Blog after 35 years ...as .. if he would hear that sound, that is described as so attractive as the sound of the proverbial sirens from Greek mythology.

In Short, I have never found a person in the west that had daily that contact with the path as is reported by Indians,

[Donald]

Like Elvis told his rhythm section that weren’t his original rhythm section. I know you’re lost but you don’t have to accentuate it . And that’s exactly what Gurinder does whether he really is or not And his new clone is no better . There’s no way to tell whether he’s cool or not he tries too hard

[Donald]

At the risk of inflating my ego and having it stop ( the sound ) I am compelled to say the truth, I have heard it. The sound. And there is nothing else like it. Being the universal OM some Non-initiates have heard it too but at least initiates know what it is.

[um]

When a young kid, we, my late dear friend, would listen to the lovely sounds of the great air-compressors and other engines our dads had running .. that sound was so lovely and pulling that on contacting it both of us would lose our consciousness and wake up refreshed as if we would have had long holidays and hours of deep dreamless sleep. That were the days we would never have dreamed later in life to come in contact with a practice that uses this kind of sound.

Based upon that memory, I suppose that ..... IF .... if, I would be able to contact even that shadow o a shadow of that sound ... I probably would never sit here and use my time in writing and reading ... hahaha

Maybe that is the reason why I never heard that sound again ...hahahaha

Anyway, there are some that do hear it but personal I think that are not many and of these few, probably the mostpart is also imagination, ..a sound fata morgana

[Ron E.]

Another thing I understand about ‘not knowing’ is to do with compassion, the way we interact with people. Not knowing includes the many diverse beliefs, and opinions that people hold, accumulated over a lifetime and embedded in the brains complex networking.

When a person espouses some belief, view or opinion, we react in some way almost automatically. Not knowing tells us that although we hear the persons views, they are just their acquired conditioned information, and only describes their particular mode of thinking – a very superficial aspect of who/what they are. All dependent on the country, culture, political climate, religion etc. A person whose views and beliefs seem to describe him/her can often display quite different thoughts and actions under different circumstances.

It all comes back the Buddhist concept of emptiness and impermanence in that everything (including ourselves) is connected and basically share the same world, the same fears, worries, joys and pains – only separated only by our conditioned mentation – all giving rise to compassion.

[Appreciative Reader]

“I agree with Shukman's approach to koans. There isn't a right or wrong answer to them. There's just how our own mind responds to them.”

“Not-knowing is the same as being for me. The sense of "I am" carries with it an inescapable "I am not." Likewise, all that I know rests on the foundation of what I don't know. Pleasingly, it takes effort for me to know. Not-knowing is effortless, since it is the most intimate quality I possess. Or more accurately, fail to possess.”

----------

Uhhh, let’s not make this unnecessarily complicated and unnecessarily oh-so-mysterious-and-deep-sounding, right?

Now I’ve not done Zen myself, but I *have* done, and do do, Vipassana. And, to an extent, Tantra as well. And the crux of Buddhistic meditation technique, as I understand it, is simply observing oneself.
There’s many tools to help one do that, that different traditions use. There’s breath, Anapana. There’s mantra. Then there’s direct, physical visual aids. And there’s visualization as well. …And then there’s bodily sensations. Emotions. Thoughts themselves.

All of those are, essentially, tools that help us to observe ourselves. In Buddhistic meditation --- as opposed to some theistic traditions (including, heh, Pure-Land, so leave that one out) --- that is always, always, always the bottom line: observing ourselves. The tools are always just tools, the actual thing you’re meant to be doing is just observing yourself.

Now, coming from there, I do find myself nodding in agreement with Shukman, when you quote him as saying about Koans that “There isn't a right or wrong answer to them. There's just how our own mind responds to them.”

That seems straightforward to me, what he’s driving at. Clearly Koans simply offer you yet another tool to observe yourself. Absolutely, that means not looking for answers to the riddle itself, but instead observing how the mind reacts to the riddle. That observing how the mind reacts? *That* is the direct intimacy he’s talking about. That and the fact that the Koan is always with you, all you need to do is attend to it. Like how breath is sometimes referred to, metaphorically, as your most intimate friend and guide?

---------

Again, I’ve not done Zen myself, let me emphasize this one more time: so that what I’m saying about the mechanism of how Koans work is ultimately conjecture. But on the other hand, it is informed conjecture, coming from a position of familiarity with Buddhistic meditation generally, and familiarity with this essential commonality in theme across Buddhistic traditions (bar, like I said, Pure-Land nonsense).

I’m saying, I find myself agreeing with Shukman’s statement/s, as you’ve quoted him; but on those completely straightforward terms.

So, well, pardon me, but I don’t think we need that somewhat convoluted last paragraph in your post in order to agree with him, Brian. In fact --- and I say this with all the respect that you know I have for you generally, Brian, and I say this completely literally and with absolutely no slight intended! --- but I don’t know that that last paragraph of yours even means anything at all, really, apparently deep-sounding though it sounds.

----------

Also: thanks much for that quote, Brian, and for this post!

We’ve discussed Koans before, and while I’ve generally seen them as a pedagogic tool in Zen, and accepted them on those terms: but it was very cool to finally see the actual point of them, and to understand the actual mechanism of them. It is Shukman’s words, that you’ve quoted, that pointed me, now, in the direction of that understanding.

(As for whether that mechanism actually works, whether that pedagogic technique is actually effective: Well, I wouldn’t know. I haven’t tried it out myself, after all. But I do know breath works. I know focusing on sensations works. I know looking at one’s own thoughts works. And basis that, I don’t think it is unreasonable to provisionally grant them, on their say-so, that this technique of Koans, that Zen uses, works as well.)

[Brian Hines]

Appreciative Reader, I enjoyed your observations about koans. Zen Master Shukman looks upon them as a complement to the perspective that spiritual or meditative progress occurs in a fairly predictable, step by step, gradual fashion. A koan reminds us that sometimes an insight can come quickly, out of the blue, with no warning, sort of like the difference between a steady rain from clouds that cover the horizon and a quick-hitting thunderstorm that pops up suddenly.

So while people do analyze koans, I think Shukman's perspective makes sense. A koan will touch us in some unique individual way, even if our response is "I have no interest in this stupid nonsensical koan." It's kind of like a tap on our kneecap that might create an uncontrollable muscle response or might create just an annoying minor hurt. Either way, we learn something about how our body reacts to a kneecap tap.

[Appreciative Reader]

Right, the incremental-vs-instantaneous-enlightenment thing.

I suppose it isn’t meaningful to discuss that without first clarifying, for the purposes of the discussion, what this enlightenment, or at any rate this satori/insight, consists of. I’ll venture that, in context of what we’ve been talking about here, that this is an insight into, and a first-hand understanding of, the nature of the mind itself.

Might this happen in a flash, like Zen claims, as opposed to incrementally (as all other Buddhistic traditions imply, even as they don’t actually spell it out in those terms)? Again, I don’t find it unreasonable to provisionally grant them that, the Zen-types, and at their say-so (or, to be more precise, at their implication), that their methods, and Koan specifically, does facilitate immediate insight far more often than other methods like breath, and bodily sensations, and visualization, et al, do.

----------

But regardless of that (very relevant and very important, but ultimately incidental-to-what-we-were-discussing-here) detail, and circling back to what was the actual point of my comment: I’m suggesting that Koans are no more (and no less) than yet another tool that enables us to observe ourselves. The same as all of those other tools in the Buddhistic repertoire: breath, and bodily sensations, and mantra, and yantra, and visual cues, and visualization, and so forth.

That is all this is about, is what I’m suggesting. Nothing more mysterious than just this, is what I’m saying. That the “intimacy” Shukman refers to is no different than the always-present “intimacy” and “guidance” of the breath, that the literature oftentimes refers to. Just like the point of the Koan is not the actual, analytical solution to the individual riddle: likewise, the point of it is not the actual knowing or not knowing, either. The point of this whole Koan business is that it is simply another tool, like breath and visualization and so on, to direct one's attention to observing the mind itself. A tool that wasn’t quite a new innovation, in as much as the Buddha (allegedly) perfected it himself, with his wordless Lotus Sutra lesson: but certainly one that the Zen sages refined and made mainstream within their tradition (or at least, within that portion of Zen that does use it, it is my understanding that not all schools do).

So yeah, circling back: my point was, that the entire point of Koans, the principle of them, isn’t all that mysterious and inscrutable after all. On the contrary, the principle of it, the mechanism of it, is very simply understood and explained, it seems to me. It is simply another tool, like all of the other tools that Buddhistic meditation makes use of, to help the mind become aware of what it actually is. (And what it actually is, is what neuroscience keeps revealing to us: the collection of our thoughts, and essentially a model created by the brain and nerves, a tool with which to approach, to model, and to apprehend the world and ourselves.)

----------

TLDR: Koans are a tool that helps direct our attention onto our mind, and (allegedly) facilitate our first-hand understanding of the nature of the mind, is all. Just the same as breath, for instance. That’s what the Shukman quote points at. So that what Shukman is going for here is entirely straightforward, with no need to bring in mysterious-and-profound-sounding concepts about knowing and not knowing. Just a straightforward tool, is all it is, the same as breath, and that in essence works just the same as all those others in the Buddhistic arsenal. Is what occurs to me, and what I’m suggesting.