BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 52

[Amelia]

While out walking and thinking about the question, the answer seemed at that time to be, "I am the road."

Gassho, sat today

[Jwroberts27]

Jwroberts, I like what you say a lot but wonder in this case if the donkey and well are symbolic of objects and the dharmakaya respectively?

In this instance, the donkey looking at the well is us as individual forms, recognising our empty/dharmakaya aspect (the 80%). The well looking at the donkey occurs when we realise our lack of separation from everything else, we are the dharmakaya, the ocean, the well. From this perspective we are the eyes of the universe looking at the world of form (the missing 20%).


The former (donkey looking at the well) is something I have experienced a great deal, the well looking at the donkey, not so much, although this koan has definitely softened my edges and lowered me part way into the water.

Looking deep into the well
I am swallowed whole
Rising from the depths
The bray of a donkey.


Gassho
Kokuu
#sattoday

Kokuu, thanks very much for the comment and the poem!

I see your point, and I feel that you are correct, but I also feel that this is only part of the equation. Indeed, I understand the view that the donkey is analogous to us, and the well, analogous to the dharmakaya. But I also feel that we are only making this distinction because we identify more with a fellow mammal, than with a man-made structure. I think this is one example of conceptual separation that needs to be shed. I agree that the donkey is engaging its 80% upon the well's 20% (upon realizing our interconnectedness). But the well too, is the 80% engaging the 20% of the donkey. I think that when we see this, we realize we are not just a Being looking outward upon the universe (80%), but we are also the universe (20%). In this sense, the well is only 80% in so far as it is regarded as separate from the donkey. We could also say that the well is analogous to a human who sees themselves as an autonomous entity that can reflect upon and retain what the universe has to offer (80%), while the donkey represents an entity with reactionary responses to its environment (20%). I think to suggest one over the other is to fall into a conceptual trap (as I may be doing right now!)

That is, in this anecdotal context, the well and the donkey complete each other 100%, so to speak, because they just are, in relation to each other, as well as manifestations of the same truth. At that moment in time, under the moonlight, well, donkey, water, moon, and everything else constitute the dharmakayan circuit.

The way I see it, the well and the donkey are not at all different: both are manifestations of actions in the world (i.e., procreation or brick-building), both consist of the elements (i.e., chemical) that are already present in the universe; both have taken on a particular form; and both are impermanent as forms.

I also think we tend to see "seeing" as something solely reserved for eyesight and cognitive comprehension. I think this is a continuation of our human-centered tendencies. Perhaps it is better (in my view) to see "seeing" as a relation between objects (human or nonhuman). In the same way that the donkey "sees" the well, so does the well see the donkey, as does a boulder "see" a well, when an earthquake dislodges it from a mountain and it comes crashing into the weathered brick structure. Birth and death are a matter of impermanent relations (events of seeing), whether they are done with an intention (80%) or not (100%).

Thanks again, Kokuu. I appreciate the discussion!

Gassho
John
SatToday

[Kotei]

The deeper I look into the well,
the more my own shadow gets in my way.

Gassho,
Kotei sattoday.

[FaithMoon]

It's like the student seeing the teacher.
"One robe, one bowl."

FaithMoon
st

[Jundo]

Kokuu, thanks very much for the comment and the poem!

I see your point, and I feel that you are correct, but I also feel that this is only part of the equation. Indeed, I understand the view that the donkey is analogous to us, and the well, analogous to the dharmakaya. But I also feel that we are only making this distinction because we identify more with a fellow mammal, than with a man-made structure. I think this is one example of conceptual separation that needs to be shed. I agree that the donkey is engaging its 80% upon the well's 20% (upon realizing our interconnectedness). But the well too, is the 80% engaging the 20% of the donkey. I think that when we see this, we realize we are not just a Being looking outward upon the universe (80%), but we are also the universe (20%). In this sense, the well is only 80% in so far as it is regarded as separate from the donkey. We could also say that the well is analogous to a human who sees themselves as an autonomous entity that can reflect upon and retain what the universe has to offer (80%), while the donkey represents an entity with reactionary responses to its environment (20%). I think to suggest one over the other is to fall into a conceptual trap (as I may be doing right now!)

That is, in this anecdotal context, the well and the donkey complete each other 100%, so to speak, because they just are, in relation to each other, as well as manifestations of the same truth. At that moment in time, under the moonlight, well, donkey, water, moon, and everything else constitute the dharmakayan circuit.

The way I see it, the well and the donkey are not at all different: both are manifestations of actions in the world (i.e., procreation or brick-building), both consist of the elements (i.e., chemical) that are already present in the universe; both have taken on a particular form; and both are impermanent as forms.

I also think we tend to see "seeing" as something solely reserved for eyesight and cognitive comprehension. I think this is a continuation of our human-centered tendencies. Perhaps it is better (in my view) to see "seeing" as a relation between objects (human or nonhuman). In the same way that the donkey "sees" the well, so does the well see the donkey, as does a boulder "see" a well, when an earthquake dislodges it from a mountain and it comes crashing into the weathered brick structure. Birth and death are a matter of impermanent relations (events of seeing), whether they are done with an intention (80%) or not (100%).

Thanks again, Kokuu. I appreciate the discussion!

Gassho
John
SatToday

My only caution about such descriptions is not to forget the music when talking and thinking about music.

Suppose one were to be discussing whether an individual note is jazz music, or whether a jazz listener is the music: We could talk about how the whole song consists of individual notes, yet also discuss how each individual note holds the whole song. Or, we might discuss how the listener hears the song, yet also how the song hears the listener! We could speak about whether the music is the Dharmakaya and the notes and the listener are the individual things, or just a whole in which player, played and ear flow into each other together with the sax and piano and drums, the room and waiters and jazz club parking lot, and the whole world.

However, if one merely has an intellectual discussion about jazz music, one may forget to experience being truly the music. Pulling apart and reconstructing Jazz music in words, and thinking about the relationship of notes and and tempo and instruments and audience, risks losing the actual music. In other words, Zen Wisdom is to be experienced, not merely discussed and dissected philosophically. One must really feel this and be this, man, lose and find oneself in the wild syncopation, not just analyze it. That would be my main caution, to me and everyone, about discussing this Jazzin Zen.

One must truly grock down to the soul that a donkey listens to the well, the well hears the donkey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w14rkQQjcN8

and for folks who are more classic than jazz ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ks9Q8AF4Do

Is this Christian pop? Anyway, the lyrics are really REALLY nice ... you are the well that never runs dry ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdaawxgDg5w

Gassho, J

SatToday

[Kaishin]

Is this Christian pop? Anyway, the lyrics are really REALLY nice ... you are the well that never runs dry ...

Gassho, J

SatToday

I do believe the "you" in that song is referring to Jesus, not one's self

[John Mac]

And the Man in the rain
Picked up his bag of secrets,
And journeyed up the mountainside
Far above the clouds;
And nothing was ever heard from him again

[Jwroberts27]

My only caution about such descriptions is not to forget the music when talking and thinking about music.

Suppose one were to be discussing whether an individual note is jazz music, or whether a jazz listener is the music: We could talk about how the whole song consists of individual notes, yet also discuss how each individual note holds the whole song. Or, we might discuss how the listener hears the song, yet also how the song hears the listener! We could speak about whether the music is the Dharmakaya and the notes and the listener individual things, or just a whole in which player, played and ear flow into each other together with the sax and piano and drums, the room and waiters and parking lot, and the whole world.

However, if one merely has an intellectual discussion about jazz music, one may forget to experience being truly the music. Pulling apart and reconstructing Jazz music in words, and thinking about the relationship of notes and and tempo and instruments and audience, risks losing the actual music. In other words, Zen Wisdom is to be experienced, not merely discussed and dissected philosophically. One must really feel this and be this, man, lose and find oneself in the wild syncopation, not just analyze it. That would be my main caution, to me and everyone, about discussing this Jazzin Zen.

One must truly grock down to the soul that a donkey listens to the well, the well hears the donkey.

Thanks for the response, Jundo. Easy to get carried away (a jazzy experience in its own right)!

Gassho,
John
SatToday

[Jundo]

I do believe the "you" in that song is referring to Jesus, not one's self

Oh, that is for sure. I did not know the singer until today, but found out she is big on the Christian scene.

However, I am also reminded of this other song ... especially when we are speaking of the Dharmakaya, which is beyond all names and characteristics, whether Kaishin or Jundo, Jesus or Jehovah, God or Goofy, Buddha or Basketball or Bob or Big Bang or Bababa ... even "Dharmakaya" ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DTiJHnF8tY

Different names and images and doorways to the Gateless Gate.

Gassho, J

[Mp]

Different names and images and doorways to the Gateless Gate.

So true! =)

Gassho
Shingen

s@today

[Jishin]

BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 52

Do you feel like the donkey or the well, the moon or the water?

I think that there are a lot of answers to this question.

On the one hand, I am clearly not a donkey, a well, the moon or the water. So how could I feel like any of them?

On the other, the donkey, well, moon and water could not exist without me. Without me they cannot be appreciated. They exist because I exist. But if they did not exist then I would have nothing to compare myself to, so I depend on their existence to be alive. Because this arises, that arises. Because this exists, that exists.

In Zen we say, not one, not two. Not absolute, not relative. Beyond relative and absolute.


I think words are abstractions, not true representation of reality. Unless they are just words and not abstractions. A donkey is a donkey. Not short, not tall. Just a donkey. The moon is just the moon, not bright nor dark, not full nor half. Just a moon.

It pisses me off to no end when words are passed on as the real deal when they are just forgeries. That is why I don't like to write very much and it necessarily causes me to lie when I open my mouth. When my lips move, I am not telling the truth. Yet I am. Complicated.

But we need to talk to each other because well, we have a well to talk about.

The donkey does not give a shit about looking at its reflection at the well. It is thirsty and it wants a drink. It's what donkeys do when thirsty. I feel just like a donkey when I am thirsty. I want a drink. The well? The well does not talk. It holds water and it does not care if it is drunk or not. I feel like the well sometimes. Don't feel like talking. Just want to sit and be left alone. Maybe like in Zazen.

The moon? It sits high in the sky and it does its job regardless as to whether I want to play relative or absolute Zen games. It does not care. Its just there. Same for the water.

Things are just things. No need to complicate it. A donkey is a donkey, a well a well, a moon a moon and water just water. What about me? Just me. Thats it.

A Koan is only a Koan. Unless you make it a Koan. If you don't pick up a Koan, it's not yours to solve. Yet I get suckered into them.

Gasho, Jishin, _/st\_

[Marco]

Still struggling with the koans. However, the Sufi quote in Jundos’ intro let in a ray of light:
"All know that the drop merges into the ocean, but few know that the ocean merges into the drop.”

Gassho,
Marco
satoday

PS- In answer to the question, I feel like the donkey, definitely the donkey.

[Kokuu]

The way I see it, the well and the donkey are not at all different: both are manifestations of actions in the world (i.e., procreation or brick-building), both consist of the elements (i.e., chemical) that are already present in the universe; both have taken on a particular form; and both are impermanent as forms.

if one merely has an intellectual discussion about jazz music, one may forget to experience being truly the music. Pulling apart and reconstructing Jazz music in words, and thinking about the relationship of notes and and tempo and instruments and audience, risks losing the actual music. In other words, Zen Wisdom is to be experienced, not merely discussed and dissected philosophically. One must really feel this and be this, man, lose and find oneself in the wild syncopation, not just analyze it. That would be my main caution, to me and everyone, about discussing this Jazzin Zen.

Thank you both John and Jundo. I really appreciate hearing what other people get from the koan, as they often offer perspectives I had not considered.

What I like about koans is how they can open up a different way of experiencing the world. This one certainly had that effect.

Trying to describe it is certainly not the easiest, though, and runs the risk of over-intellectualising. Maybe the best response is the same as when listening to good jazz.

"Yeah!"

Gassho
Kokuu
#sattoday

[Hoseki]

Hi folks,

I can't say I understand what's going on and that's OK.



Sat today
Adam

[Jakuden]

Hi folks,

I can't say I understand what's going on and that's OK.



Sat today
Adam

I could say I do understand, but I would probably be either wrong or lying. Something tells me there aren't going to be any Koans about which I will be able to say "Oh, I so totally understand that!!"

Gassho,
Jakuden
SatToday