|
'White & Quiet... after the storm'
A monk asked Unmon, "What is Buddha?"
Unmon replied, "A dry shit stick."
Unmon is English for the Chinese Zen master Yúnmén Wényǎn (b. ca. 683). A shit stick was a stick to wipe after defecating. The Chinese used a stick rather than a hand. Today, this koan could read:
A monk asked Unmon, "What is Buddha?"
Unmon replied, "Toilet paper."
Like Buddhist koans generally, this one can have varied meanings. Those I have heard include:
Buddha is as practical as a shit stick.
Here, one is cautioned not to veer off into metaphysical ruminations but to experience Buddha in the most ordinary activities, in the here-and-now. You have possibly heard the saying that some persons are so heavenly minded they are no earthly good. Zen is founded on a tendency, contrary to the Indian religion of the historical Buddha's time, to veer away from metaphysics and discover the Buddha-life in the apparentness of everyday life. This bent is a reason Buddhism is called nontheism - it discourages discussion about a Higher Being. Yet, theists have practiced Buddhism, finding in it an enhancement of their theistic religion.
Indeed, while I am not a Buddhist, its wisdom has inspired me to remain grounded in the Way over the last twenty-plus years. It has helped me shun futile flights of fancy, not denying my belief that there is more than the seen, while realizing the seen-and-unseen are of one fabric of Reality. Being a person easily caught in my head, Buddhist wisdom pulls me out of the head into everything. Buddhism helps me unite the gift of intelligence with a heartful life. I would not say I always succeed at this, but Zen says that is okay - even failure is Buddha.
Buddha is what is.
What you are doing now is Buddha. If you are playing with your dog or praying on your knees, both are Buddha. There is no separation between sacred and profane, religious and secular, spiritual and worldly. A shit stick and a prayer rosary are Buddha, a spiritual teacher and a criminal serving a life sentence are Buddha, a holy book and an entertainment magazine are Buddha, a church full of worshippers in the suburbs and an abandoned barn in a rural field are Buddha. And while I repeat are, the apparent contrasts are Buddha for Buddha is Buddha; hence, we could say all the above is Buddha.
In discussion on this koan with a friend, what arose was a reply to the koan I had not sensed prior:
Your question is shitty.
Unmon is saying, "Get out of your head, you cannot think your way to Buddha." Notice, Unmon does not say, "Buddha is a dry shit stick," only "A dry shit stick." We can see his reply as a refusal to answer the question, for it deserves no such response. Anything we think Buddha is, is a mis-take. Why ask, "What is Buddha?" when the question is futile. Why ask to know what you can only know through meeting?
Buddhists would likely not agree on the understanding of "Buddha" in the question. One idea would be the historical Buddha. Another would be the Buddha Nature in all. This ambivalence is similar to a difference among Christians, some who equate Christ with the historical Jesus, others with the Christ in the historical man Jesus but equally present now - a spiritual presence. So, the question, "Who is Christ?" is ambivalent.
The monk's question is much like a theist asking, "What is God?" One can ask, "What is God?" But what does "God" mean? If you inquire, "What is that that I have no idea what it is?," can I reply logically? Possibly so, if I say something like, "I have no idea, same as you." - Yet, to have no idea who or what God is, this is not the same as denying one knows God or espousing atheism or agnosticism. One may, indeed, know God and not feel a need to be a theist - as one may know Buddha and not be a Buddhist or desire to be one.
* * *
I relate this, "Hush! get out of your head to meet the Buddha" to the apophatic tradition in Christianity. This teaching leads us to unlearn what we thought God to be. We, thereby, know God through negation: God is not this, God is not that. This negation is like saying, "Neti Neti" in Hinduism: not this, not that. We know God, yet we cannot say what God is. Even the word "God" loses its power over us. We can only say, "I know God." Or, possibly better, "I know." Since Truth cannot be an object, that would be a good confession of faith or creed, and more truthful than possibly any creed confessed ever - "I know." I would like to see that, a church gathered, then standing for the recitation of the creed, and all say, "I know." That is it! How wonderful!
* * *
We do not meet Truth through conceptualization about It, even as we do not know a person by what we think she is or anyone says she is. To meet the Sacred, we drop thoughts of the Sacred - the Sacred, which is a non-belief, does not compete with belief. When dropped, conceptualization does not interfere with a direct meeting with Truth. Yet, after meeting Truth, we cannot reframe it. We know the Sacred only in meeting the Sacred, never outside that encounter. We speak afterward of the knowing that occurred in the contact - that the meeting was. All said following is shadow.
Only the Heart leads us into the Holy of Holies. This Holy of Holies is the Harmony in all things. One might say, "It is everything, and more." But, thankfully, the more we speak of It, the more we show how we have mis-taken It for what It is.
So, know by resting in the relinquishment of desire to know. In Meeting, the Light shows you the Light. In seeing the Light, you know the Light - there is no separation between "seeing" and "knowing." Seeing is knowing. Knowing the Light is the Light knowing you. But what can you say of that?
* * *
*(C) Brian K. Wilcox, 2020
*Brian's book, An Ache for Union: Poems on Oneness with God through Love, can be ordered through major online booksellers or the publisher AuthorHouse. The book is a collection of poems based on mystical traditions, especially Christian and Sufi, with extensive notes on the teachings and imagery in the poetry.
|
