|
| List Price: | $40.00 |
| Amazon Price: | $36.00 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. |
| You Save: | $4.00 (10%) |
| Average Rating: |  |
| Lowest New Price: | $30.05 |
| Availablitiy: | Usually ships in 24 hours |
|
 |
|
Product Description
Koans are enigmatic spiritual formulas used for religious training in the Zen Buddhist tradition. Arguing that our understanding of the koan tradition has been extremely limited, contributors to this collection examine previously unrecognized factors in the formation of this tradition, and highlight the rich complexity and diversity of koan practice and literature.
Customers who bought this item also bought
Average Customer Review:
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
 Excellent resource, 2005-10-03
I can't disagree with most of these reviewers. This is an excellent resource for understanding the koan tradition. Many of the essays are penetrating and leave the reader with an ever deeper and wider understanding of the koan tradition. I do in fact think this volume surpasses Zen Dust. The lengthy review by Ikeda pretty much tells you all you need to know about the contents. But let me just say that this is as true a "drink of water" as any other on the topic. Like any scholarly work on religion, its inspiration comes in its analysis. Yes, koans can be analyzed, studied, and researched, and they should be.
12 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
 Interesting, but problematic, 2005-04-13
Touted - in places, as the most definitive study of the Zen Koan to date - in Western sources, I would hesitate to accord such status to this book, not least the idea that it has supplanted Zen Dust (Miura/Sasaki). While certainly interesting , this study is not quite the innovative venture promised in the cover blurb - and, of the eleven chapters in its pages, the final entry by Sogen Hori, a practicing Zen monk, left me with the most misgivings (I explain why, later in this review). It might be useful to list chapter headings, noting the focus of the contributors. The text opens with an Introduction by Stephen Heine and Dale S. Wright.
Chapter 1.The Form and Function of Koan Literature.
-T. Griffith Foulk.
Chapter 2. The Antecedents of Encounter Dialogue in
Chinese Chan Buddhism.
- John R. Macrae
Chapter 3. Mahakasyapa's Smile: Silent Transmission
and the Kung-an (Koan) tradition.
- Albert Welter.
Chapter 4. Kung-an Ch'an and the Tsung-men tung
yao chi.
- Ishii Shudo.
Chapter 5. Visions, Divisions, Revisions. The
Encounter between Iconoclasm and
Supernaturalism in Koan cases about
Mt. Wu-tai.
- Stephen Heine.
Chapter 6. "Before the Empty Aeon" versus
"A Dog has no Buddha-nature. "
Kung-an use in the Ts'ao-tung
tradition and Ta-hui's Kung-an
Introspection Ch'an.
- Morten Schlutter.
Chapter 7. Koan History: Transformative
Language in Chinese Buddhist
Thought.
- Dale. S. Wright.
Chapter 8. Ikkyu and Koans.
- Alexander Kabanoff
Chapter 9. Transmission of the Kirigami
(Secret Initiation Documents):
A Soto Practice in Medieval
Japan.
- Ishikawa Rikizan.
Chapter 10. Emerging from Non-duality.
Koan Practice in the Rinzai
Tradition since Hakuin.
- Michel Mohr.
Chapter 11. Koan and Kensho in the
Rinzai Zen Curriculum.
- G. Victor Sogen Hori.
As the title suggests (The Zen Koan: Texts and Contexts) the contributors to this study are, for the most part, working with the hypothesis that koans are 'textually' based entities, even if ultimately related to a supra-textual (i.e. experiential) context. Besides John MacRae's essay (Chapter 2) dealing with the Antecedents of the Encounter Dialogue in Ch'an Buddhism, we learn relatively little about the background to the Zen wen-ta/ mondo which provided the basis for kung-an/koan texts. We might note that for the early Zen Buddhists, it was axiomatic "not to speak too plainly " (pu shuo pu), their way being to teach in a purely spontaneous manner - direct pointing, without reference to fixed study programmes, texts. The content of such dialogues became the basis for the kung-an/koan. The Zen way of 'commenting' - 'capping' one phrase or remark - with another, gave us the so called Zen 'capping phrases' (jakugo). Both sound familiar enough, but we must recognise that in its original context, this did not mean working with fixed texts like the Hekiganroku (Chin. Pi Yen Lu) - or 'capping phrasebooks.' What we hear of Zen 'koan' today reflects later developments, the signal difference being that - unlike the records found in the Chuan Teng Lu, Tsu Tang Chi etc., reflecting an earlier, oral tradition, the Mu-mon Kan, Pi-yen Lu etc., had been conceived as 'literary' products from the start. No doubt, John MacRae would hasten to add that even the earliest records have been re-worked, which is probably true. Still, the material was derived from 'dialogues' - and didn't begin life as polished works of art.
Alas, the opening chapter by T. Griffith Foulk (Form and Function of Koan Literature)barely rises above a few generalisations. Isshi Shudo's essay (Chapter 4)amounts to a series of textual notes and cross references, set out to show that the 'Tsung-men T'ung Yao chi' (Jpn. Shumontoyoshu) had a formative influence upon more well known sources e.g., the Wu-men Kuan (Jpn. Mumonkan), Pi-yen Lu (Jpn. Hekiganroku). Isshi's essay opens with a rule-of-thumb distinction, identifying Tang Chan with 'intrinsic enlightenment' (pen-chueh) and Sung Chan with 'acquired enlightenment' (shih chueh). It must be said that - stated in such polarised terms, such distinctions would have meant little to Chinese Buddhists of the Tang/Sung (or Japanese masters such as Hakuin, for the matter). One of the 'straw men' of Japanese Buddhist scholasticism - this distinction has given rise to hopelessly dichotomised views - winning fresh notoriety in the hands of the 'Critical Buddhist' fraternity.' In practical terms, isolating such idioms makes about as much sense as trying to understand the 'Sho' and the 'Hen' of the Zen Go-I (Five Ranks) in isolation. Reliable sources show that Zen training necessarily involves both aspects(without 'pen-chueh' [inherent enlightenment]- there can be no 'shih-chueh' [experiential enlightenment], and vice versa. Given all the attention paid to 'language' in this book, viz. the koan, one might have expected more focus on the practical relevance of such idioms.
Albert Welter's essay (Chapter 3) was useful, noting the role of Yung-ming and Wu-yueh Ch'an, making better sense of the inter-face between scriptural Buddhism, orality - and the ultimately ineffable nature of totality. Morten Schlutter's essay (Chapter 6) focused on the tensions affecting Zen practice in the Sung - happily, playing down the 'polemical' tension between the Lin-chi and Ts'ao-tung schools, exploring the constructive interface between them.
Surprisingly, only one chapter in this book (Mohr's, Chapter 10) touched on what is arguably the most disputed question in contemporary Rinzai Zen practice - namely, the status of the Rinzai Zen 'Ken-ge,' 'capping phrases' (jakugo) and Hakuin's putative role in that regard. Mohr casts a sceptical eye on the matter. Mohr's essay promised to be engaging, with observations about Hakuin's classification of koan, Torei's views etc. Hakuin's comments were well worth assessing at length - but, Mohr's essay digresses into background issues just where one might have expected the focus on Hakuin to continue (the emergence of the Obaku school is mentioned, but only enough to act as disruptive interlude. The digressions on Gattegno's theory of education had but slender bearing on the Buddhist topics at hand). A propos Hakuin's interest in Taoist 'nai-kan' methods (which, after all, restored the Master's health), Mohr joins in the academic chorus, 'poo-pooing' Hakuin's mention of Hakuyushi - the Taoist figure he claimed to have met in Shirakawa. However, earnest Japanese Buddhist biographers such as Rikukawa Taiun, have confirmed Hakuin's account, related in the Yasenkanna. Twelve years ago, there was still a Dojo on the mountain road between Shirawkawa and Hiei-zan, full of memorabilia, bokuseki etc. relating to Hakuin's meeting with Hakuyushi. The incumbent was 96 years old, and certainly regarded Hakuin's meeting with Hakuyushi as genuine. (after all, the Dojo was full of artifacts, bokuseki etc. The incumbent has since passed on, the building no longer functions as a Dojo, but the reviewer saw these things for himself. Yasenkanna is not 'definitely fiction' - as Mohr asserts, and Hakuin did not confess that he made the story up - as Mohr claims. When Hakuin stated, in his postface to the Yasenkanna (1757) that he "had not set up (mokeru) the story (of Hakuyushi) for gifted people who had realised the truth in a single hammer blow" - he was not defining the story as an expedient fable, but qualifying the point that those who had made significant advances in Zen training could dispense with what he had to say about 'nai-kan' and Hakuyushi's teaching. As Mohr's essay otherwise makes clear, Hakuin retained an interest in such practices, and continued to teach them to his followers - if needed. (For the record, the Shisendo [Hall of Immortal Poets] in Shirakawa, formerly Ishikawa Jozan's home, is dedicated to Chinese poets. In the Tokugawa, the toshukan there was full of Chinese texts, including Taoist manuals, and there is nothing odd in the idea that Ishikawa Jishun [nom de plume, Hakuyushi] availed himself of its resources).
Closer attention could have been paid to the moot question of Hakuin's role in devising fixed 'koan systems' and attendant ken-ge etc. Mohr expresses caution over Hakuin's alleged contribution to the latter (i.e. fixed ken-ge), but in view of known sources such as the Keiso dokuzui (1756) and Keiso dokuzui shui (1759), it was a little bold for Mohr to assert (p.265) that "neither Hakuin's nor his direct disciples' works mention an explicit sequence of koans " for on the very same page (first para.), Mohr noted the sequential function of the 'hosshin' and 'nanto' koans, outlined by Hakuin in Sokkoroku kaien fusetsu (which simply reiterates Hakuin's position in the other works I have noted). Still, Mohr is right in the sense that Hakuin refers not so much to specific, individual koan, but rather, to complexes of koan which fulfil a certain function - vis-a-vis the maturation of Zen practice. Hence, if Mohr is saying that Hakuin wasn't a meticulous drudge who devised Zen ken-ge with a rigid bearing on a student's 'kyogai' or situational maturation of insight- well, I would have to agree. Hakuin wasn't that dull!
Ironically, the one chapter contributed by a practicing Rinzai Zen monk (Chapter 11, by Sogen Hori), struck me as the most problematic. That Hori describes Rinzai Zen training as a 'curriculum' - makes his position clear. It is worth noting that Master Rinzai knew nothing of a 'curriculum' - as Hori presents it. What kind of 'curriculum' is Rinzai's 'true man of no fixed position' (wu wei chen-jen)?
While undoubtedly correct in pointing out that Zen does not eschew all use of language, and indeed, developed a highly refined literary genre of its own, Hori seems to be privileging language in ways which often seem alien to the spirit of the tradition. While the best Zen masters have utilised language with consummate skill, I would question Hori's notion that Zen sets us free 'within language.' Would it not be more accurate to say that 'Zen words' operate on the bordeline between the describable, and the indescribable, bringing out meta-linguistic potentialities. Every Zen comment carries with it what Hans George Gadamer called 'the infinity of the unsaid.'
The 'elusive' nature of such dialogues has been likened to the free motion of pearls on a tray - round, rolling, slippery and slick, and as 'literary' specimens, they become something else. Ostensibly, Hori's tastes reflect the atmosphere of the so called 'wen-tzu chan' or 'literary chan' of the Sung - which, in many ways, went hand-in-hand with the introduction - to Japan, of texts like the Hekiganroku. The other side of the picture - downplayed by Hori, is that Ta-hui, an eminent master Lin-chi (Rinzai) Master in Sung China, burnt the printing blocks for the 'Blue Cliff Record (Hekiganroku), feeling that it encouraged an unhealthy predilection for literary habits. This is often obscured by the fact that - like Hakuin after him, Ta-hui was a vigorous opponent of the so-called 'mokusho zen' (silent illumination Zen) - and, as such, enlisted as a champion of 'kanna' (introspecting the word) Zen or 'koan Zen. However, Ta-hui opposed the excesses of 'koan-zen' just as vigorously as he had opposed the more lifeless interpretations of 'silent illumination.' Topics like this can scarcely be examined in a book review, but suffice it to say that Hori has only given us one side of the story. He has privileged 'wen-tzu chan' and seems relucant to consider its defecits. In his full length work, Zen Sand (a translation of Zen 'capping phrases' with introductory chapters outlining the background of Rinzai Zen, see my Amazon.com review), Hori says (p. 70): "despite the formalisation and heavy institutional framework. . .modern Japanese Rinzai koan practice is still easily recognisable as kan-hua meditation " - but, insofar as Ta-hui eschewed the need to examine whole series of koan, as Hori advocates it - this claim begs a number of questions. Borrowing Hee Jin Kim's definitions, Hori contrasts the 'instrumentalist' view of the koan with a 'realisational' model, the former alluding to kensho/satori as a shattering transcendental insight, rising above conditioned relativities, while the latter takes shape as a transformative process - interacting with the world of conditioned relativities. While Hori acknowledges that both 'models' are valid, he gets precariously close to rejecting the accepted understanding of the former - as a distortion, generated by modern interpreters (e.g. Suzuki and those influenced by him). But this overlooks the fact that such initial breakthrough experiences are related in traditional accounts. Even Dogen had his experience of 'shinjin datsuraku.' Hori fleshes out his theories by appealing to Western sources (e.g. Kasulis, Katz, Rosemont, Wright) - or Hee Jin Kim, whose idiosyncratic views are in many ways, an indirect critique of Rinzai Zen. Hori rejects notions of Zen as an access to 'pure consciousness' (in Buddhist terms - 'Mind Only') explaining it away as too 'Cartesian' - but, when all is said and done, the teaching of 'Mind Only' isn't from Descartes, but a well known aspect of Mahayana Buddhism articulated in the Lankavatara, Surangama Sutra etc. It is still there, in Hui-neng's remark to the two monks, debating whether it is the wind or the banner which moves ("It is neither the wind nor banner that moves, but the Venerable Sirs' minds which move" etc.). I cant afford to go into this here, but it strikes me that Hori's ideas are too empirical and body centered. Hori's account reflects the preconceptions or fashions of Western academia, e.g. describing certain koan situations in terms of a simple, 'performative' function. This may satisfy existentialists, phenomenologists etc. - but, in Zen, the 'yu' (Chin. 'yung') or 'function' aspect refers not to the physical body per se (the 'guest'), but the unconditioned Buddha-nature (or 'host') working through it. One wonders why Hori didn't turn to Hakuin, rather than Western writers, whose conceptions seem but distantly related to the demands of Zen practice. Reference to the Keiso Dokuzui - especially the section dealing with the Tozan Go-I (Five Ranks) would have left us better equipped to understand the Buddhist perspective on key issues raised by Hori. Again, Hakuin's comments on the Surangama Sutra, dealing with the araya-shiki (alaya-vijnana) would have lent clarity to such topics. Hori sees 'pure consciousness' as a problem, even a privative definition, but when Buddhists use the term 'inconceivable (pu ke se yi), it is with a sense of wonder - hence, they use the term 'miao-yu' or 'marvellous existence' - because it defies description. Albert Welter (Chapter 3) - a 'mere academic'- if you'll forgive the term, astutely notes that Master Wu-men (Jpn. Mumon)likened the state of Zen awakening to that of a deaf mute who had experienced a dream, utterly unable to communicate it to anyone. Of course, even master Wu-men left us some words! Hori introduces another questionable analogy from Western philosophy, stating that 'pure consciousness' is - to Buddhism, what 'the state of nature' is to Western social philosophy - i.e. something you can never discover, in fact. But the analogy is inaccurate. Unlike the hypothetical 'state of nature' - prior to all social convention, which can never be found, the unconditioned (Unborn) Mind-nature is always there. This doesn't make the phenomenal world into a colourless blank, of course, and it is surely a matter of common sense that 'practice' must translate meaning into the phenomenal side of our existence. Nobody is enlightened because of the body, but nobody can find enlightenment without one. Still, to put it rather unprosaically, why privilege what Buddhism calls the 'skin bag'?
That said, it must be admitted that the 'realisational' aspect does get played down in some contemporary accounts of Zen - and in that sense, Hori's remarks are a corrective. Not only Ta-hui, but even Yuan-wu sometimes speak as if the initial 'breakthough' experience were everything - the successful use of a single koan to this end - explaining all others (Yuan-wu Hsin Yao 3,HTC 120. 379b14-15). Ta-Hui declared that "the 'living word' or phrase (huo-chu) was that in which no further discursive meaning could be found, whereas the 'dead word' (ssu chu) or phrase, is that which leads to further, discursive activity." It is probably true to say that the initial breakthrough is the most vital step, for without it, there is nothing to 'mature' in the realisational model. Still, so far as koan are used in the context of post-satori training, they are surely not functioning in the same way as the 'initial' koan. Even so, it would be a misunderstanding to assume that such koan herald a return to conventional language per se. 'Seeing the mountains again' - as mountains, after 'not seeing them as mountains' -is a wholly different way of seeing mountains. Sogen frequently refers to the 'hori/dori' of koan practice, as if it were amenable to language and reason in the conventional sense - but, if so, why hasn't a single Zen master to date, tried to 'explain it all' - in simple prose? Kim borrowed the term 'hori/dori' (reason of the way/reason of the Dharma) from Dogen. Dogen's use of this term had a Buddhist context, and it is tendentious to discuss it as if the 'ri' denoted anything like 'reason' - as known to us since the 18th c 'Age of Reason.' Hori knows very well that it doesn't belong in that category - but, the drift of his remarks frequently gives the impression that it does. Hori has leaned heavily on Kim's account, and Kim's account has more or less dismissed the so called 'instrumentalist' function of the koan. As such, it is a problematic model to appropriate for an account of kensho in the context of Rinzai Zen. Kapleau's account in the 'Three Pillars of Zen' makes more sense of the shifts of emphasis involved here, just as Chinese Buddhists distinguish between 'chieh-wu' or satori - the initial breakthrough insight - and further insights, culminating in 'cheng wu' or complete enlightenment.
In Sogen Hori's 'Zen Sand' cited above, we find a glaring problem in the introductory chapters (p. 82), where we are told that texts like the Zenrinkushu (ZRKS)were probably rendered redundant by the reforms of Hakuin, whose 'ken-ge' were written after Ijushi compiled the Zenrinkushu. Hori then wobbles, declaring that such ken-ge and attendant reforms may not have been Hakuin's at all, but just those of a certain 'someone.' In the next few lines, he swings back into the affirmative again, referring to such reforms as 'Hakuin's.' To say the least, this is a shaky way to handle sources of tradition. What would it mean, to simply 'dump' the Zenrinkushu, because of the reforms of a certain someone - 'maybe' Hakuin, maybe not? And what is it about other Zen phrasebooks, that would make them more relevant than the ZRKS? They draw on much the same material -e.g. Tang/Sung sources, and from that point of view, it makes little difference how you re-arrange the entries, deleting a phrase here, entering a phrase there. The 'standard' Zen phrasebooks duplicate each other to such an extent, there seems little point in making a song and dance about which version to use. In one sense, it's all 'snow falling in the well.' Roshis may prefer this or that version - but, it isn't a big deal. It would have been useful if at least one chapter of this book, had been entirely devoted to the role of Zen capping phrases/ books, and the attendant role of Zen 'ken-ge' - regrettably, left uncertain in this study. Like the secret 'Kirigami' in Soto Zen (cf. Ishikawa's essay, Chapter 9), this is where the Rinzai school gets a bit silly, at times. 'Ken-ge' are guidelines, if you like, giving certain pointers for people working on koan. Often as not regarded as 'secret' - or at least restricted, they convey a sense of being 'privy' to certain 'in-house' methods and documents. While the ken-ge probably originated as the fruit of genuine advice - either set down by an eminent master in person, or put in note form - by disciples, it is doubtful whether they were meant to be 'fixed' and thereafter regarded as immutable guidelines. Given the uncertainty surrounding the origin of such ken-ge, it seems questionable to regard them as 'Hakuin's.' Hakuin was unusually prolific and left us a weighty body of teachings, in written form. They exude an open-ness and represent anything but a 'closeted' nest of secret teachings.
Whatever Hakuin's achievements - by way of reform, and despite the evident merit of successors such as Torei, post-Hakuin Rinzai Zen has been clouded by bouts of rigid formalism that scarcely live up to the dynamic spirit of the great Tokugawa master. It seems much more likely that the so-called 'Hakuin no ken-ge' were produced by successors in the Takuju Kosen/Inzan Ien lines (Mohr suggests as much, himself). Without clarifying this point, Hakuin may well be held to blame for the rigidity often associated with such material. Indeed, this was the position taken by Fukunaga Shuho in his 'Gendai Soji-zen Hyoron,' (A Critique of Modern-day Pseudo-zen), published in 1926. Unofficially suppressed, it was obviously too near the knuckle, for some people. Divided into two portions - one setting out the 'curriculum' of Rinzai study - the other, a lengthy, critical analysis of its contents, it left little doubt that some (but by no means all) of the contemporary Rinzai lines were ensnared in lifeless formalism. The pity of it, is that Fukunaga attributed it all to the influence of Hakuin, when it is by no means certain that Hakuin condoned it - or even knew anything about it. Mohr and Hori both give the impression that it is difficult to determine the content of 'in-house' material used by Takuju Kosen/Inzan Ien lines, but Fukunaga's text gave a very precise account of it. When Yoel Hoffmann translated the portion used for Zen training (ignoring Fukunaga's critical analysis in the second part), it was published (cf.'The Sound of One Hand') with a foreword by an eminent Roshi, authorising it as a genuine document, with the hope that it would one day rank as a classic, alongside the Hekiganroku and Mumonkan. Sogen Hori presented a snippet of allied material in the text under review (p.p. 290-291)but given the absurdly 'rehearsed' nature of such material, it seems unlikely to acquire fame as a classic. Uncomfortably, however, such material evidently 'cuts the mustard' with some roshis (photocopies of such material have been sold 'under the counter' in Buddhist bookshops, as a kind of crib for Zen trainees)and one wonders where 'Hakuin' stands in all this? Such matters could profitably have been considered in studies like the text under review, so I have raised them, anyway.
What Hori means by a 'curriculum' in Rinzai Zen, appears in the explanatory notes (Zen Sand, pp. 32-33) showing how Rinzai's 'four discernments' (or rather - 'strippings' -shi liao chien/Shiryoken) break down into twenty seven component parts, with the addition of 'capping phrases,' 'nenro' verses etc. But in its original context, there were simply the 'four discernments' - the additional components being by no means essential.I wouldn't wish to rule out the practice of throwing Rinzai's teaching into a matrix of this sort - but, at times, you get the feeling that such devices have become cumbersome, obscuring, rather than amplifying the core material. Again, Hori notes that Tozan's Go-I (Five Ranks) breaks down into 47 component parts. Not all Japanese Roshis adopt such a prolix attitude. To be fair, Hori does touch on the problem of formalism. In Zen Sand, he noted the 'touchy' atmosphere surrounding the final components of the 'Rinzai curriculum' - viz., whether it ought to conclude with the 'goi jujukin' (five ranks and ten grave precepts), or be taken a stage further - known as 'Kojo' (translated as as -'directed upwards' by Hori). In Japan, this issue has led to some pointed argumentation - if not dogmatic rigidity. In Tang parlance, 'kojo' simply meant the 'upward way' or the vertical, transcendental dimension of insight, as against the horizontal. Kojo is now taken to mean a further refinement of practice-beyond practice. It ought not to be a problem, because the Tozan Go-I already presupposes that the final stage is, in effect, a stage of no-stage - similarly perfecting the practice-beyond practice. Why get so obssessive about terminology? In Western Zen centres, (Japanese) Zen Roshis seem more flexible, even using 'Alice in Wonderland' as a source for 'capping phrases.' The point is, what happens to the 'spontaneity' of Zen, when it becomes an exercise in being terribly fastidious over ken-ge, linked 'capping phrases' etc.? Isn't it a bit like spending life, walking around in somebody else's shoes? Roshi's of Hakuin's ilk wouldn't have let it become anything of the sort. One final criticism: given the number of Zen idioms cited in this text, it would have been helpful to find them noted in kanji form somewhere.
It must be admitted that the linear-historical/empirical- objective standpoint - of academia, doesn't dovetail that well, with the 'host' position - taken in Zen training. In a certain sense, they cancel each other out. One has nowhere to go, the other is always restless. If there is a bridge between the indescribable horizons of Zen - and the use of words, rational discourse has a limited role, taken samvrti-satya. If there is a 'reason of the way' (do-ri), it unfolds according to what Pang-yen termed the 'language of the Unborn,' and a skilful use of 'turning words' or phrases (chuan-yu). The people who made Chan/Zen what it was, maintained that we should not try to speak too plainly. This love-hate relationship between Zen and 'words' has always been there. We hear that Yun-men (Jpn. Ummon) used to chase people out of his temple, if he found them setting his words down in writing. Yet he left us plenty of words. One explanation, is that they were recorded surreptitiously, by a monk wearing a paper robe. I'll settle for the 'itchy' love-hate relationship, in which words are loaded with meaning - but ultimately point beyond the bounds of the describable. Unlike Martin Heidegger, Zen Buddhists do not regard 'language as the house of being.' And - 'who' is at home, anyway?
32 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
This is an Excellent, Important book!, 2000-06-17
This is now THE best overall book available in English ABOUT the koan tradition, finally supplanting Miura Roshi and Ruth Fuller Sasaki's The Zen Koan, (formerly Zen Dust) after more than three decades. The contributors to The Koan are among the best current American and Japanese scholars in the field, such as Griffith Foulk, John McRae, Ishii Shudo, and Dale Wright, and the material included covers a range of periods and methodologies involving koans, including information not available before in English, such as in the provocative article on the Japanese Soto kirigami tradition. The book makes accessible current scholarship about the history and development of the koan, for example in the overview in Foulk's article. One of the editors, Steven Heine, has previously published two important books about koans, Dogen and the Koan Tradition, and Shifting Shape, Shaping Text, about the Fox Koan, which greatly expand our awareness of the richness and complexity of the koan tradition. Heine's article in this book goes further to show the role of the supernatural in koans. However, the buyer should be aware that this is NOT an anthology of koans themselves, or a collection of commentaries by spiritual teachers, but rather an academic perspective about the history and methodology of the koan. Major koan anthologies, and their sources in the Collected Records of individual masters, or in Lamp Transmission catalogs, as well as multiple layers of commentaries by ancient masters, are now available in reasonable translations. Also a number of respected current Zen teachers have published practice-oriented commentaries for the consideration of modern Zen students. But this book offers valuable background context in the history and development of the tradition and its methodologies. In a previous, deplorably misguided and totally ignorant amazon review, this book was described as "bad," and irrelevant to the "living tradition." There has been a recent tension and unfortunate lack of communication between Zen scholars and practitioners. Happily, this gap is beginning to heal. Scholars are beginning to openly express appreciation for the value of Zen's spiritual teachings. And practitioners have been gaining a deeper appreciation from academic scholars to inform our practice with the historical context of the koans and the varying practice methodologies. If you are actively engaged in koan practice with a teacher in one of the lineages that sanctions only one single acceptable response to koans, maybe you should check with your teacher before reading this book. But for most practitioners, this book will be extremely valuable in giving context for koan work. Such context is definitely relevant to the "living tradition." A prime example is the final article in this book by Victor Sogen Hori, now a professor at McGill University, but previously a long-time Rinzai monk in Japan. According to highly reliable sources, Hori progressed further in the Japanese Rinzai koan curriculum than has any other Westerner. His article on "Kensho in the Rinzai Zen Curriculum" is highly illuminating, precisely explaining the important role of scholarly study in the Rinzai koan practice tradition itself, and clearly dispelling damaging and mistaken stereotypes about kensho that have been sadly prevalent in the West.
Price is accurate as of the date/time indicated. Prices and product availability are subject to change. Any price displayed on the Amazon website at the time of purchase will govern the sale of this product.
|
Store Categories
|