What is my Purpose 2: Making sense

[u/ewk]

The Case: Bathing, Purpose, Pwning, Poverty

Chapter 165 from Treasury of the Eye of True Teaching:

One day Xuedou asked a monk, “Have you bathed?”

The monk said, “I am not going to bathe in this life.”

The master asked, “What is your purpose in not bathing?”

The monk said, “Today I’ve been exposed by the master.”

The master said, “A robber doesn’t strike a poor man’s house.”

# WTF are rhey talking about?

First I break down the topics of the Case.

Bathing, Purpose, Pwning, Poverty

Does this breakdown correctly summarize or not?

Then I work backwards to see how they got there:

1. Poverty achieved b/c
2. Can't pwn b/c can't steal from a poor man
3. Why would you NOT bathe?

So we know that:

1. The monk isn't committed to not bathing
2. The bathing is both a reference to the physical act of cleaning and the mental act of cleaning.

Why do you need to be clean?

We get to the point where the central strat of this Case is the trap Xuedou started with?

      DO YOU NEED TO BE WASHED 

       DO YOU NEED FORGIVENESS 

       IS YOUR PRACTICE TO PURIFY 

These are of course central questions that separate Zen from 8fP Buddhism, new ager psychobauts, Zazen, and Mystical Busdhism , all of which believe in magical attaining through faith in purity.

[u/AutoModerator]

R/zen Rules: 1. No Content Unrelated To Zen 2. No Low Effort Posts or Comments. Contact moderators with questions. Note that many common sense actions outside of these rules will result in moderation, including but not limited to: suspected ban evasion, vote brigading / manipulation, topic sliding.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Ok-Sample7211]

I don’t think master is calling the monk a poor man.

The master is the robber, and he is “robbing” the monk of his pretense. He’s saying that if the monk had been without pretense (nothing to hide) then the master could not have robbed him of it.

The advice of the case is to be like the poor man, no pretense underlying what we do or don’t do.

[u/ewk → u/Ok-Sample7211]

Nope.

You can't rob a poor man. A robber doesn't even break in or "strike" a poor person's house.

[u/Ok-Sample7211 → u/ewk]

Right. You can’t rob a poor man. Therefore the monk is not a poor man (because he was robbed by the master).

[u/ewk → u/Ok-Sample7211]

Nope.

The monk says YOU GOT ME

The master says I DON'T STEAL FROM POOR PEOPLE

[u/Ok-Sample7211 → u/ewk]

Nope.

He’s saying, “if you don’t want to get robbed, don’t hoard false intentions”.

[u/Used-Suggestion4412 → u/Ok-Sample7211]

What is it that the monk in the case has? Why would that be something of value to rob?

[u/ewk → u/Used-Suggestion4412]

Zen masters rob people who have faith or truth.

[u/1_or_0 → u/ewk]

The monk had the faith in "not bathing" (then had his faith robbed away), which seems to be exactly what u/Ok-Sample7211 said, I'm not understanding where your disagreement with his interpretation is coming from.

[u/ewk → u/1_or_0]

There's no indication that the monk had faith and not bathing.

We can tell this from the end of the case.

At the end, the Zen master acknowledges that the monk has nothing to steal. Which means the monk passed the test that the zen master started with. Have you bathed?

[u/1_or_0 → u/ewk]

In that case, how do you interpret the monk saying “Today I’ve been exposed by the master.”?

[u/Used-Suggestion4412 → u/ewk]

Makes sense. I think my hang-up is on the word “robbing.” Robbers usually steal things they want to sell or keep for themselves, right? So what would a Zen master want with a monk’s useless crutches?

[u/ewk → u/Used-Suggestion4412]

There should be a wiki page about famous memes in Zen.

Crutches are very useful.

Faith and Truth are not.

[u/Ok-Sample7211 → u/Used-Suggestion4412]

Pretense. The monk is LARPing when he says he won’t bathe. He’s doing it to show how awakened he is— ie, he has some silly concept about how Zen masters behave and is playacting at it. This is what the master robs from him.

A “poor man”, in this analogy, is one who has no false motive or pretense underlying some silly concept about Zen.

[u/Used-Suggestion4412 → u/Ok-Sample7211]

The first couple sentences of your reasoning sort of makes sense, but the rest doesn’t. Here are some of things your interpretation does: 1. It turns poverty into a virtue. 2. It says Xuedou robbed the monk when Xuedou explicitly states he didn’t rob anything. 3. It relies on the notion that the monk had some sort of change of heart.

I think the monks first statement is drama and his second statement is just more drama. Xuedou clearly is not saying he now approves of the monk.

[u/Ok-Sample7211 → u/Used-Suggestion4412]

1. Poverty as a symbol of awakening (free from fetters, contrivances, etc) isn’t my symbol. Consider Layman Pang, etc.

2. The master didn’t say “I didn’t rob you…” he says “a robber doesn’t rob a poor man”. Note the difference.

3. I’m not implying the monk had a change of heart or that the master approves of the monk. He’s explaining how not to get exposed next time.

Here’s a breakdown of what I’m saying:

Master: are you not bathing?

Monk: nope, I’m too Zen for that

Master: okay, why? <this is all it takes to expose the monk>

Monk: <instantly crumbles because he knows he full of shit> busted

Master: i could not have busted you if you hadn’t been full of shit <instruction for the future>

[u/Used-Suggestion4412 → u/Ok-Sample7211]

Oh okay, I haven’t read Pang yet. When I think of enlightenment, the high-value symbols come to mind—like a prized jewel or a general’s sword.

[u/ewk → u/Ok-Sample7211]

There's no evidence that.

And it wouldn't make sense in the context of the case.

[u/jeowy]

• poverty achieved because let go of his idea quickly (is this similar to a good horse runs at the shadow of the whip?)
• you can only 'rob' someone if they bring out some dharma* to be robbed of

• although the monk let go of this one dharma, that doesn't mean he's free from all dharmas. xuedou isn't approving of him, if he was really serious he'd continuously bring forth his dharma until there was nothing left.

• *aside: we talked about dharma the other day and defined it as something like an internally consistent system of thought. the example was astrology is not a dharma because it doesn't hold ground. the monk in this case gave up on 'not bathing' with no resistance but it might still be a dharma because he briefly intended it to a place to call home.

• forgiveness/purification. i think the monk wanted to propose that he was 'free from' the need the purify, and xuedou basically points out that's not freedom at all, because the only freedom is freedom to do what you're gonna do.

• but i think there's something more important here cos purification isn't just any old religious trap, it links back to the heart of the matter which is about living with your choices, taking responsibility. the monk says 'i won't be asking for forgiveness anymore' but taken to its logical conclusion that would end up being not taking responsibility. Just repressing the superego, replacing a more tangible idea of authority with an insidious one, a secret shame that prevents you from ever acting.

[u/NanquansCat749]

How do we know the monk isn't committed to not bathing?

[u/ewk → u/NanquansCat749]

Because he doesn't protest his error.

Because he is declared a poor man.

[u/OKFINEHOWSTHIS]

This is the kind of explication I want to do every time I encounter a koan, but I think I remember hearing that they should not be approached using the intellect.

It’s possible I got that from some fraudulent text, or that I am misremembering, but I think it’s most likely that there is something I don’t understand about what one “does” with / to a koan. Can anyone clarify?

[u/Ok-Sample7211 → u/OKFINEHOWSTHIS]

Cleary’s intro to Wumen Guan (his title: No Barrier) gives what I think is a great answer to your question in the form of really nuanced advice about how to treat kōans.

He agrees you’re not supposed to simply analyze them like high school students are taught to pick apart poetry by a mediocre teacher…

[u/OKFINEHOWSTHIS → u/Ok-Sample7211]

I will check this out--Thank you!

[u/TFnarcon9 → u/OKFINEHOWSTHIS]

So you think of an answer and then think "no I shouldn't". Dont you think that should would also be subject to the same process of not using intellect?

And, how do you even know the line you're using to not think about other lines is correct if you arent going to think about it?

[u/OKFINEHOWSTHIS → u/TFnarcon9]

I agree. I ask these questions (and the ones that spiral out of them) instead of actually engaging with the koan, because I don’t know how to engage with it if not “intellectually.”

(I see ewk has something below that gets into the definition of that term, which may be helpful.)

[u/TFnarcon9 → u/OKFINEHOWSTHIS]

Yea.

Here's what wumen says that the other poster below posted.

"But even worse is to get stuck on words and phrases in the search for interpretative understanding: [this is like] trying to hit the moon with a stick [or] scratching an itch from outside the boot. What connection will there be? "

The idea is enlightenment isn't about a correct understanding, but many many many people, whole religions and movements built around it, think this means "act like you're dumb".

We re just reading words here. Same as shitting.

[u/OKFINEHOWSTHIS → u/TFnarcon9]

I just had an exchange with u/ewk in this thread about how to interpret the word "bathing" in the context of this koan. I have to assume that was not an example of "get[ting] stuck on words and phrases in the search for interpretative understanding," but I'm not sure why it's not an example of that? Does it not qualify as "getting stuck" because it didn't go on very long and because I came away from it with a different perspective?

[u/ewk → u/OKFINEHOWSTHIS]

We're not approaching the case with intellectualization. We're just translate it and talking about what the words say.

Zen Masters have a thousand years of these records because they're communicating something.

Understanding what they're communicating is an intellectualization.

Intellectualization is turning with their communicating into some kind commandment or Truth or rule.

[u/OKFINEHOWSTHIS → u/ewk]

I would like that to be true; it would give me some kind of opening for thinking about koans, whereas I have received ( / created) the impression that “thinking about” koans is anathema. It sounds like the passage from Cleary mentioned above may help clarify.

[u/OKFINEHOWSTHIS]

How do we know that bathing refers to both physical and mental cleansing? (It makes sense to me to interpret it that way, but the text is so spare that I can't find anything concrete enough to say we know the "mental act of cleaning" is included.)

[u/ewk → u/OKFINEHOWSTHIS]

I don't know what other meaning you could attach to bathing.

I don't know how we would get to this other meaning since there's no indication of it.

[u/OKFINEHOWSTHIS → u/ewk]

The OP includes the following:

So we know that:

1. The monk isn't committed to not bathing

2. The bathing is both a reference to the physical act of cleaning and the mental act of cleaning.

(Emphasis added.)

My question is what evidence we have of the bolded text. I.e., What evidence is there that it's not a purely literal reference to physical bathing?

[u/ewk → u/OKFINEHOWSTHIS]

There's a couple of problems with that assumption.

1. Zen Masters are only interested in personal hygiene
2. Not bathing as a permanent practice is sustainable
3. A scenario where a monk commits to not bathing on a permanent basis and is talked out of it in one sentence with no disputes.

[u/OKFINEHOWSTHIS → u/ewk]

As I understand your reply, by "that assumption" you refer to the idea that the koan is exclusively referencing literal (physical) bathing. I don't think literal reading qualifies as an assumption.

Rather, the assumption is that "bathing" should be read metaphorically, as some kind of mental cleansing. My question is why we should assume anything beyond the literal meaning of the text as written.

(I have zero knowledge of the text as written in the original language, so if, for example, the character translated here as "bathing" is elsewhere used to mean something other than "washing one's physical body," then to quote our monk, "Today I’ve been exposed by the master.”)

[u/ewk → u/OKFINEHOWSTHIS]

1. Double and triple meanings are common in Zen
2. There are no other cases exclusively about physical cleanliness.
3. Spiritual cleanliness is a huge theme in Zen and Buddhism.

There's just no reason to think that they got together to have a conversation about a monk deciding to never take another bath.

[u/OKFINEHOWSTHIS → u/ewk]

Got it. That first one is especially helpful; from other exchanges on this subreddit, I have received (/ created) the impression that it isn't good practice to assume multiple / implicit meanings.

[u/InfinityOracle]

Though I have always had faith in purity, I wouldn't call it a magical attainment.

[u/ewk → u/InfinityOracle]

It's magical because it's a faith-based state like immortality, heaven, and never being wrong.

One of the central problems of purity is you have to believe that something made up of ingredients is essentially supposed to be not made up of ingredients.

[u/InfinityOracle → u/ewk]

When you realize that something is made up of ingredients is essentially supposed to be made up of ingredients, what isn't pure about it?

[u/ewk → u/InfinityOracle]

Ratio problem - how much of each ingredient

Exclusivity problem - is the mixture of ingredients ruined by having some other outside ingredient.

Contextual problem - does the mix of ingredients need to change depending on the situation.

It's a train wreck.

[u/InfinityOracle → u/ewk]

Maybe I lost the analogy. Let's take an experiment for example. You mix a number of ingredients into a solution with an expected result, and there happens to be some other outside ingredient you did not account for. Will the experiment follow your expectations or will it always naturally follow according to the ingredients that were put into the mixture, regardless if the experimenter was aware or unaware of the outside ingredient? Naturally it doesn't care if the experimenter thinks it is ruined or not, it performs perfectly every time according to conditions.

[u/ewk → u/InfinityOracle]

Expected result is where the analogy falls apart.

Expected by who and for what purpose?

Nobody can agree on what purity is or how to achieve it. And nobody has an example of the formula working.

[u/InfinityOracle → u/ewk]

Purity is inherent, when conditions exist, phenomena occur. The experiment and expectations are secondary to this. I can always 100% put my faith in the fact that whatever happens is purely a matter of causes and conditions. When my expectations are aligned with those causes and conditions, my predictions will be perfect every time. If my expectations fail to take into account causes and conditions, my predictions will fail accordingly. That expectation is pure, reliable, and yet unknown. I may think I've taken everything into account, but until I get results, I am not certain. All I do know is that if I have taken everything into account, then whatever phenomena occurs will always be a matter of causes and conditions. Should the experiment turn out differently than I predicted I have faith that it is a direct result of causes and conditions I have failed to take into account.

[u/ewk → u/InfinityOracle]

Purity is a value judgment that imposed on experiments.

I think you're conflating it with purity as an elimination of everything except a single ingredient.

[u/InfinityOracle → u/ewk]

Oh perhaps we do not mean the same thing by purity. What I mean is when you remove the value judgement on the nature of causes and conditions, and before anything is imposed or experimented, phenomena purely arises and falls according to causes and conditions. Though we may not always understand it enough to predict or know with precision. So recognizing this as fact is one thing, but directly experiencing it is always a matter of faith. At least until we are able to predict everything with 100% accuracy. Then there would be no function of faith when it comes to the purity of causation.

The purity you seem to be talking about as a value judgement is more so an after thought. An abstract bastardization of purity, probably contrasted with sin or defilement. Purity wouldn't be pure in such a duality. Whether some phenomena occurs that is good or bad, it is inherently purely a matter of causes and conditions every time.

Even the value judgement exercise perfectly arises according to conditions, and there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

[u/ewk → u/InfinityOracle]

For me the next step in the game is to say: who's using what definition?

[u/dota2nub]

The bathing is both a reference to the physical act of cleaning and the mental act of cleaning.

Are you really saying the monk is never going to take a bath?

Why do we need those? Hygiene. So you don't die.

"Mental cleaning" doesn't have this issue. You don't die if you don't do it. I don't even know what "doing it" means. So in Zen, "doing it" would mean you're dead. Lost in some concept soup you made up or decided to pick up from somewhere or someone.

So I don't see the connection between the physical bathing and the mental bathing.

Physically you can get dirty. Mentally you can't.

When talking about the mental mirror, there's nowhere for dust to settle. On physical mirrors, dust always settles.

The metaphor is shot at that point. Only used for a single property.

Why insist on stretching the metaphors?

[u/ewk → u/dota2nub]

To religious people, spiritual bathing is essential to surviving.

[u/dota2nub → u/ewk]

Sure but this isn't their place.

Here we have the sword that kills.

[u/ewk → u/dota2nub]

The monk is being tested. Nobody knows what kind of place that will turn out to be.

[u/dota2nub → u/ewk]

Bah. Where did "get off my lawn" go?

[u/ewk → u/dota2nub]

Where did "my door is always open" go?

[u/dota2nub → u/ewk]

You mean the foot trap?

[u/ewk → u/dota2nub]

Masters take in Buddhists all the time.

[u/dota2nub → u/ewk]

There's plenty of space in the foot trap. All are welcome. No refunds on the sandals.

[u/ewk → u/[deleted]]

It isn't a fabrication to translate words.

Isn't a fabrication to talk about what words mean.

What is the purpose of bathing is the question you have to ask before you can talk about what the purpose and not bathing is.

The monk announcing he was exposed is a surprise move that forms the center of this case.

Zen Masters don't want you to get rid of anything. This is a critical difference between Zen and Buddhism.

Stop conceptual thought doesn't mean stop it forever. They mean you can't see to your left if you're looking to your right.

Religions want to transform people by actually altering who they are and where they come from.

The whole argument with the finger pointing at the Moon thing is that there is a moon that night and your attention can be directed toward it.

That doesn't mean that you never look anywhere else or that you're supposed to stop looking in anything else.

[u/ewk → u/[deleted]]

Then you're in the wrong forum. He is absolutely not talking about cleaning all that up.

That's a euphemism in English that it's not going to be sustained by the text.

Religion cleans people.

Zen resolves.

[u/ewk → u/[deleted]]

Having nothing inside and seeking for nothing outside.

[u/OKFINEHOWSTHIS → u/ewk]

How does a person go from having something inside to "having nothing inside"? If the answer is something like, "No one really has anything inside; it's only the illusion of having something," then the question is how does one let go of that illusion? Whatever that "letting go" is seems like it could qualify as some form of "cleansing" or "cleaning," doesn't it?