Zen Curioso

Originally posted by reinfeld
..you are told in the original post that the man does not wish to break the bottle and so how is the problem solved when one's desires are such ?...is there a way to free the goose yet fulfill the man's desire not to break the bottle...life is full of such competitions in our own soul and between men...how is both harmony and success found in the same place..?

Of course, but my question remains unanswered. Why does the man not wish to break the bottle? Unless I can understand his motivation the point of the koan is lost in our digressions ...

..you do not need to know why he does not wish to break the bottle...you are given two points that do not meet...it is not the purpose of the koan to go into the premises of the points but rather to see what life experience lies between the two points....life brings unresolved tension which can bring misery or enlightenment...

Originally posted by reinfeld
..you do not need to know why he does not wish to break the bottle...you are given two points that do not meet...it is not the purpose of the koan to go into the premises of the points but rather to see what life experience lies between the two points....life brings unresolved tension which can bring misery or enlightenment...

Perhaps that is the misery which my life must endure.
For me the scenario is pointless. It is neither meaningful or likely. So to use it as a justification of some deeper psychological point is lost.

...the problem here is that you are too grounded in the material...so if you cannot see a material purpose or solution you wish to disregard it...you are not ready to enter the monastery yet grasshopper...go back to the fields and return next year after the third full moon and we will try again..

Originally posted by reinfeld
...the problem here is that you are too grounded in the material...so if you cannot see a material purpose or solution you wish to disregard it...you are not ready to enter the monastery yet grasshopper...go back to the fields and return next year after the third full moon and we will try again..

I display myself at your feet and beg for your forgiveness master. I will do as you ask.

But when I do return can we move beyond geese in glass bottles?

....you may return when you are ready and you may bring your own question...the answer given must not be important...the question is what is important..now drink your tea and get across the river before the sun goes down as their are still manchurian bandits on the road these days...

Originally posted by reinfeld
....you may return when you are ready and you may bring your own question...the answer given must not be important...the question is what is important..now drink your tea and get across the river before the sun goes down as their are still manchurian bandits on the road these days...

Thank you master.
May I lick your feet clean?
Or are you hungry?
I have this nice goose over here, although I am rather partial to the glass bottle I'm keeping it in ...

...( the master has left ) but he hears some small mockery outside the gate and the breaking of glass...

a shout! 'Get back here, you %#$@*& goose!'

Originally posted by vistesd
How will you get the goose out of the bottle?

I know, the same way you get those little toy ships into the bottle. I just wish I could tell you how its done because it's still a mystery to me.

Good discussion. Reinfeld seems on the right track here; it seems he has some familiarity with the nature of koans.

However, to resolve—just for the point of discussion—this question about why the man does not wish to break the bottle . . .

Well, I can go two ways:

(a) The bottle symbolizes, as does the goose, something existentially valuable (which it does)*; or

(b) You can simply assume for the time being that there is no available means of breaking the bottle without injuring the goose (which may also be true in terms of the symbolism).

Amannion’s question, “What is this attachment that the man feels for this bottle?” goes precisely to (a).

As to the goose’s ability to survive in the bottle, at least for a time—a cheetah can also survive in a cage, at least for a time. So the dilemma goes to being held captive by something that, of itself, is existentially valuable . . .

Reinfeld’s early comment about painting a scene around the bottle is precisely—wrong. However, it is wrong in an interesting way that I think highlights the koan. (If I were re-writing it, I might try to find a way to get that in there.)

* It is the perception that Zen Buddhism (and similar “eastern” paradigms) devalues “the bottle” that leads to a particular criticism thereof; and sometimes, admittedly, I think the error is made.

Well, those are just some hints and allusions. I’ll set myself aside again for awhile; I am truly appreciative of your willingness to work on this.

I don't have an answer to the question, but I am thinking that perhaps the bottle could symbolize reason (or logos or, perhaps, yang energy), and the goose, spirit (or love, or yin energy).

If one's reasoning (or rational consciousness) is inflexible, then the spirit will only be able to grow so far.

Originally posted by castlerook
I don't have an answer to the question, but I am thinking that perhaps the bottle could symbolize reason (or logos or, perhaps, yang energy), and the goose, spirit (or love, or yin energy).

If one's reasoning (or rational consciousness) is inflexible, then the spirit will only be able to grow so far.

Again, you’re on the right track. From a strict Zen point of view, I’d say that your terms sound “too big” or “too much”, too metaphysical or too “spiritual”. In Zen, it’s a bit more basic.

On the other hand, I don’t want to get dogmatic about it—or suggest that the symbolism can’t be expanded into other domains, such as Taoism (which certainly influenced Zen) or Christianity, for that matter.

I’m going to stand pat for just a little bit longer, but since you brought yin and yang into it ( 😉 ), the paradoxical opening verses of the Tao Te Ching might provide a little clue—

The Tao that can be talked
is not the real Tao.

Any name you can say
is not the final name.

Nameless: the origin of heaven and earth.
Naming: the mother of ten thousand things.

Empty of wanting, perceive mystery.
Filled with wanting, perceive manifestations...

—Freely adapted from translations by Stephen Addiss and Stanley Lombardo; and Ursula Le Guin.

________________________________

As far as having “an answer to the question”: When you have it, you’ll know it; you won’t have to think about it, but you’ll likely find it damnably hard to put into words (hence poetry, koans, etc.: just fingers pointing to the moon). If you have it a little bit, it will eventually come back round to kick you again.

Originally posted by vistesd
Here is a traditional Zen koan—

___________________________________

A man once made a home for a small goose in a large bottle. The goose was free to leave the bottle and return as he wished. But, by and by, the goose grew too large and one day became stuck in the bottle.

The man did not wish to break the bottle, nor did he wish to hurt the goose. ...[text shortened]... e in an “eastern” culture)—to see how various people might interpret it. Just out of curiosity.

How will you get the goose out of the bottle?

I bet this has something to do with non-duality vs. duality... Am I right, vistesd? If I go about solving the problem constructively, then I betray my dualistic thinking.

As an aside, I would be interested in discussing more Zen stuff with you. Often I get so wrapped up in Christian doctrine that I forget about my contemplative roots. Like Merton, I value the non-dual aspects of my relationship with God. I'm probably going to rifle through my library for a few choice books on the subject shortly...

Have you ever read The Cloud of Unknowing?

--------------

I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow, but I'll try to keep in touch while I'm on the road. Peace.

--------------

EDIT: After I am more prepared (i.e., after I do a bit more reading on the subject), I will start a new thread entitled, "Zen and Christianity," where duality and non-duality can be explored with perhaps somewhat less mutual exclusiveness. I see a place for both.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]How will you get the goose out of the bottle?

I bet this has something to do with non-duality vs. duality... Am I right, vistesd? If I go about solving the problem constructively, then I betray my dualistic thinking.

As an aside, I would be interested in discussing more Zen stuff with you. Often I get so wrapped up in Christian doctrine t ...[text shortened]... can be explored with perhaps somewhat less mutual exclusiveness. I see a place for both.[/b]

I don’t think it has to be about non-duality versus duality. Merton’s The Inner Experience is right on point vis-à-vis this koan, for example (though he doesn’t mention it), albeit from a dualistic perspective. As I replied to castlerook I remembered our old argument about whether one “pushes beyond” in taking a non-dualist view, or lapses back into concept-making-mind. Interestingly, Merton and D.T. Suzuki argued over this very thing.

In any event, such arguments—for folks like Merton and Suzuki—come after they have both had similar realizations. And dualist-theists have to beware of makyo as much as non-dualists (Thomas Keating talks about this in the context of Christian contemplative “Centering Prayer” ). Other good books on the subject are William Johnstone’s Zen Christianity and Dom Bede Griffith’s Return to the Center, the latter being in the context of comparing/contrasting contemplative Christianity with Hindu Advaita Vedanta.

Sadly, I have not read The Cloud of Unknowing, though I have heard parts of it read.

Have a wonderful vacation!