Introduction
Koan is considered as one of the representative feature of Zen Buddhism in China, while Zen Buddhism has also been taken commonly as filled with the aura of China. Indeed, koan, as a representative feature, is known famously for its paradoxical character, contradictions and absurdity. Many scholars in various fields have worked on the possibility of understanding the real contexts and natures inside koan. However, I think it is reasonable to understand the theories inside Zen Buddhism mandatory, as to give the account of koan. In this essay, I will try to give an analytic analysis and account on the understanding of complex situation in koan by using western speech act theory. Hence, I would intend to figure out of different possible ways and methods in understanding the usage of koan in Zen Buddhism, under the stance of the intention of communication as a form of rationality. Along with the using of western theories, I would also try to figure out the similarities of koan in Zen Buddhism, along with the other thinking – Taoism in China.
Language characteristics of Chinese thinking
Overview the major thinking in China, Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism, language has frequently been put at a complicated position with paradoxical nature. For this instance, I will try to give examples to illustrate this type of paradoxical language character. One paradoxical nature comes from the form of breaking common recognized contrast concepts.
“There is nothing in the world bigger than the tip of an autumn hair, and Mount T'ai is tiny. No one has lived longer than a dead child, and P'eng-tsu died young. 12 Heaven and earth were born at the same time I was, and the ten thousand things are one with me.”[1]
天下莫大於秋毫之末，而大山為小；莫壽於殤子，而彭祖為夭。天地與我並生，而萬物與我為一。《莊子》齊物論
天下莫大於秋毫之末，而大山為小；莫壽於殤子，而彭祖為夭。天地與我並生，而萬物與我為一。《莊子》齊物論
As in the chapter of Zhuangzi, “On Levelling all things”, it is noticeable with a lot of reversing of the concepts, such as big and small, young and old. At this point, the paradoxical language nature is clear, as in the form of introducing of a reversed contrast objects. However, this is not the end, but only an intermediate scenario. In fact, there should be a unifying point for the contrasting objects. So, in this case used in Zhuangzi, that is called “One”.
“Now I am going to make a statement here. I don't know whether it fits into the category of other people's statements or not. But whether it fits into their category or whether it doesn't, it obviously fits into some category. So in that respect it is no different from their statements.” [2]
今且有言於此，不知其與是類乎？其與是不類乎？類與不類，相與為類，則與彼無以異矣。《莊子》齊物論
今且有言於此，不知其與是類乎？其與是不類乎？類與不類，相與為類，則與彼無以異矣。《莊子》齊物論
The categorizing of concepts is embedded in the usage of language. This categorization is the reason for the contrasting of subject and object. In this sense of understanding language in Taoism, we can find koan in Zen Buddhism are having a commonly shared similarity in this type of contrasting and distinguishing, which is the idea of “bie” (別).
The idea of bie gives us some insight on the account when we face the paradoxical nature of koan in Zen Buddhism. Koan is the dialogue between Zen masters with disciples or some stories of ancient master. Among all the koan, totally unrelated answers or speech from the Zen master are common. In some situation, dialogues in koan are full of logical contradictions and paradoxes. I think the idea of bie can give us the idea of why the dialogues in koan are filled with contradictions. For this point, I will try to give more concrete as the discussion goes on.
To study the rhetoric nature of koan in Zen Buddhism, logical contradiction and paradox are commonly taken as the most difficult task to solve. However, it seems koan should also share some common characters with other thought that is filled with logical contradiction and paradox, as I have depicted previously. From this point of view, this idea also gives rise to one big question: how koan can be used in using paradox to give rise or achieve the certain goal or truth? Nevertheless, we have to take a brief view of the rhetoric nature in koan:
I see mountain which is not in the appearance of mountain, and water not as the mountain of water[3].
見山不是山，見水不是水
見山不是山，見水不是水
As seen in this example, seeing mountain as not in the appearance of mountain will be self-defeating since seeing a mountain as coined by the Zen master will imply the receiving of the appearance of a mountain. Yet, it should be rational for us to understand the intention of the speaker to communicate inside the content of koan.
As to answer the previous question in a rational way, I would like to discuss and treat koan as a form of communication, which is delivered from Zen master to his disciples in a rational way. On other hand of saying, I take the willing of communication as a form of rational act. As Prof. Ba Hutian suggested that koan can be understandable[4], I think this mode of treating koan as a mode of communication as rational; can give the academic with more rooms for the discussion about the function and the principle of using koan in Zen Buddhism. Indeed, it is far more interesting than dissolving the problem by treating koan as irrational form of communication, or mystifies koan by simply taking it as religious act. With this assumption and common ground in mind, I will try to account for the usage of koan in Zen Buddhism according to western theories and try to find possible way for the understanding koan.
Understanding koan with ge yi (格義) from Speech Act theory
There are several suggestions for the understanding koan as an effective and rational approach[5]. As in the original concepts from Austin, he suggested there are some senses of doing something as implied by saying something[6]. This is what he called locutionary act out from the content of the sentence. Further, Austin went on to say this locutionary act as an addition illocutionary force which is something “more” than the lexical meaning of the sentence, or in other words, what the speaker really meant. The illocutionary act of sentence will be referring to the act about the meaning out of the content of the sentence. Indeed, Austin further suggested certain consequential effects will be produced according to the actual “meant” of the sentence. The produced consequential effects are indeed very much depend on the context, convention, atmosphere, or the listener’s own background. As Bernard Faure suggested, koan are essentially performative, and they are illocutionary as they create an “event” and necessitate some kind of social-ceremonial and perlocutionary insofar as they indirectly produce effects that are not always perceived by the protagonists.[7] This account of koan is following to the account of Austin on focus on the convention and background of the audience. However, we have to figure out how Austin purposed this approach, how do we understand the complex situation between speaker, audience; intention, consequence; sentence meaning and sentence meant, and how this understanding can help us to understand koan.
The two main views to describe the building up of illocutionary act will be on the side of speaker’s intention and consequence in letting audience understand. Here, I take speaker should have said something with meaning, or at least with rationality, as the basic assumption for our discussion. Or, speaker says something or done certain particular acts that should process certain aims. This should connect to speaker’s meaning, or speaker’s intention. And it shall be sounder to understand since intention to produce an illocutionary act should primary be done on the speaker’s side. Next, the consequence side should be connected with the audience’s thought. However, in common daily situation, the consequence side should produced speaker’s intended consequences and also unintended consequence. This problem will be discussed in the next part, with reference to the convention of audience. Nevertheless, I think Austin tried to focus more on the consequence which means what illocutionary acts being done or even perlocutionary acts being done should be depend largely on audience’s background or convention. So, the question on intended consequence and unintended consequence has come to place.
Intended consequence and unintended consequence
Speaker’s intention is the main driving force of trying to deliver sentence meant as intended consequence. One speaker should try to voice out something as to make it deliverable to particular audience. This “something”, which I can called sentence meant or in Austin’s term: use of language, is a complex term which can cover other matters even more diverse than illocutionary and perlocutionary acts[8]. But this is what the speaker really wants to make some “further” meaning out of the meaning of the sentence. Then, if this intention act of attempting to deliver “further” meaning was done and the audience can understand, this will be the intended consequence. Of course, the “further meaning” is not purely the meaning of sentence, and the understanding of real sentence meant has to require audience convention or background.
The unintended consequence perceived by audience needs to require the driving force from speaker. But the consequence will be going to somewhere outside what speaker’s sentence meant, or the consequence of staying only at the meaning of sentence. This may be the case of staying only at the meaning of sentence or some situation of misunderstanding. I think staying at the meaning of sentence will be one most important reason for the understanding of koan as with paradox or logical contradiction. The logical contradiction or paradox is the empirical reading of the meaning of sentence. I would like to say the Zen masters in those koan were trying to direct their audience to this reading of the meaning of the sentence which lead to absurdity and contradiction. However, what the Zen master would intend to do or aim to do, will be the meaning of sentence and more than the meaning of sentence. Also, as Austin suggested, use of language or what I called the sentence meant, will cover more than illocutionary act. Hence, I think the logical contradiction or paradox will belong to the bigger term – use of sentence or sentence meant. As in Austin’s account, the references to ‘use of language’ have nothing to do with the illocutionary act[9], so I think this definition of the term illocutionary act will be narrower than my discussion about koan. Also, Austin focused primarily on the succeed illocutionary act, which makes his account not a really suitable ge yi explanation of koan. This can also said to be pun or equivoque which is in the sense of speaker’s intention to generate double meanings.
Both intended consequence and unintended consequence has to depend on the understanding of the sentence meaning spoken by the speaker. I try to give an example for illustration of intended consequence first:
For audience to understand A’, the audience has to understand meaning of sentence A first as said by the speaker. This means the evolvement from audience to understand meant of sentence should have the logical consequence followed by the meaning of sentence. Then we look at the more complex situation if unintended consequence (together with intended consequence) also taken into account:
There is a close connection between speaker’s intention and the sentence meant. From the example of unintended consequence for understanding only literal meaning, I think the emphasis on the possible unintended consequence will be the disagreement between Prof. Yiu-ming Fung and Prof. John Searle in the essay by Fung.[10] Searle’s idea will be one sentence with two speech acts on the stage, which can formulate in this way:
Searle:
Fung:
Fung pointed out that Searle should mean no sentence behind the stage – the primary/direct speech act. I think Fung would like to address Searle’s stance will be his largely emphasis on speaker’s intention but little emphasis on the sentence meant. Indeed, Fung’s opinion of 2nd meaning of sentence can depend both literal meaning and non-literal meaning which can refer to the instance of unintended consequence. Among Searle and Fung, Fung shows the connection between the speaker’s intention and sentence meant, while Searle’s account is more like a consequential way of accounting with little emphasis on the possibility of staying only at the literal meaning of the sentence. Nevertheless, for a successful sentence meant know by the audience, convention or background is crucial.
How is the convention or background used for the understanding of koan?
The next question which follow previous problem will be how the convention and background of the audience – disciples can help them to understand koan in the context or to achieve speaker’s intended consequence. Indeed, the training of Zen disciples has to emphasis on the awareness of language limits and the concepts. Certain training is used to build up disciples’ state of mind to a level of knowing the boundaries, limits and the real nature of language can do. Hence, this background can let the disciples to make use of this special method to connect the actual uses of language with the assertion usage of the language[11]. And this method is a way to reach the goal of satori (悟) – which is suggested by Suzuki as the essence of Zen. As mentioned in Fung’s essay, Fung suggested and agreed on Suzuki’s saying about the essence of Zen is satori. This is no doubt to be one of the intended consequences of Zen master in delivering dialogue to his disciples as in the koan. As Fung have agreed, there is no truth in terms of enlightenment except that of what G.G. Jung says about “spiritual reality”[12]. At this point, Fung has the same point as Suzuki in the account of koan which is the opening of one’s mind, enlightenment. I will pick up the goal of satori and discuss further in later discussion. Nonetheless, the background and convention should direct disciples to the Zen masters’ intended consequence, as to the reaching of satori. I think I can say that the absent of the background and convention in disciples, koan will only lead to master’s unintended consequence which is staying only at the literal meaning of the sentence.
Logical forms, structure of koan
Next, we come to the discussion of how koan is formulated in logical form. Indeed, Zen paradox can be formulated according to modern logic in the formulation of:
(1) P is true, if and only if P is true.[13]
In the formulation of (1), there are only those things concerning truth value that can be understood. So, as to cooperate with daily predicate, the formula can obtain in the form:
(2) P is Q, if and only if P is not Q.[14]
To formulate the previous koan example: “I see mountain which is not in the appearance of mountain, and water not as the mountain of water”, then the understanding will be:
(3) I can see the mountain not as a mountain if and only if the mountain is not a mountain.
And one more example:
(4) Let me see your original appearance before you were born.[15].
this can be formulated as:
(5) Let me see your born appearance if and only if you haven’t born.
Indeed, koan is considered as filled with paradox according to the formulation in (2). The paradox in koan can also vary among different situations, audience and different conditions of audience. From this point of view, Prof. Chung-ying Cheng tried to show koan is meaningless for the manifestation of the ultimate truth (satori in Suzuki’s term) according to the disconnection, not understandable or meaningless.[16] Indeed, Cheng thought the sincerity of the answer from Zen masters show the real connection to the ultimate truth, regarding to the disconnection, not understandable, meaningless in koan. I totally agree with the stance of Cheng about the relationship for Zen master in using koan with paradox, then to the reaching of certain truth. There is a real connection for Zen masters’ speech inside koan to the ultimate truth, through the way of Zen masters in using paradoxical speech. At this point, we can see the logical formulation in koan do really have to do with the Zen master in achieving particular goal.
Linguistic understanding and the analysis of koan in linguistic context
Koan is read with paradox and contradiction if we only read its literal meaning without acknowledging any reply from Zen masters who is indeed giving the connection of reaching ultimate truth, through the paradox and contradiction. Nevertheless, there can also be some linguistic understandings for koan and can be represented in five main types of features:
(1) equivoque, (2) symbolic, (3) negation, (4) meta-language of different levels, and (5) replaceable[17].
(1) equivoque, (2) symbolic, (3) negation, (4) meta-language of different levels, and (5) replaceable[17].
First, for equivoque, it is as same as what I have mentioned previously about the sentence meaning and sentence meant. The two meaning in the equivoque should have reference to the Two levels of discourse (erdi二諦). The first level of discourse (第一義諦) is commonly said to be inexpressible or not possible to express. For this instance, equivoque has come to place which the first level of discourse is referring according to convention of audience. So the first level of discourse can refer to what I have said previously– the sentence meant. And the second level of discourse (第二義諦) will be some commonly know literal meaning, sentence meaning or unintended consequence from the speaker. As indicated by Ba,
Clearing of the heart mind and the viewing of nature, will be the most important Zen Buddhism…… Hence Buddhism always uses “this” to represent the self-nature. The lifting up of the fist will represent “this” “self-nature”. There will be enlightenment of mind if one can understand this. However, if one doesn’t understand, he can only stay at the second level of discourse, and only understand the fist only as the fist. So, we know every equivoque nature of Zen Buddhism’s speech.
禪宗最重「明心見性」。······ 因此佛家常以「這個」代表自性。而舉拳即表示「這個」「自性」。如果懂得，則當場開悟，如果不懂，則世諦流布，就當它是拳頭好了，是知禪宗句句都含有「雙關性」。[18]
禪宗最重「明心見性」。······ 因此佛家常以「這個」代表自性。而舉拳即表示「這個」「自性」。如果懂得，則當場開悟，如果不懂，則世諦流布，就當它是拳頭好了，是知禪宗句句都含有「雙關性」。[18]
This is one nature we can understand the equivoque nature of sentence in koan.
Second, the symbolic meaning will refer to the stepping from common custom/ second level of discourse to the first level of discourse (由凡入聖). As we can see in the example:
‘Seeing mountain as mountain and water as water’à ‘Seeing mountain not as mountain and water not as water’à ‘Seeing mountain as mountain and water as water again’
見山是山，見水是水→見山不是山，見水不是水→見山又是山，見水又是水
見山是山，見水是水→見山不是山，見水不是水→見山又是山，見水又是水
This will be the case of Zen master in giving the sense of the state of enlightenment, or the state when reaching ultimate truth. The previous example of different stage of looking at the same thing but with different results, has shown the concrete example in the experience of looking at the same thing at different stage of prapatti (practicing Buddhism rules in English, 修行 in chinese). This shows the first stage: seeing mountain as mountain, which is the second level of discourse. Then, seeing mountain not as mountain is referring to the state of first level of discourse. Finally, for seeing mountain as mountain again, this is the state after the reaching of certain truth, but that truth is indeed not really of “getting” something.
Third, the nature of negation will be the methodology in reaching the ultimate goal or enlightenment. As in the former example, seeing mountain not as mountain and water not as water, this will be the method of negating with the commonly existed customs, concepts and knowledge. In Zen Buddhism, there is a famous poem about the nature of Zen Buddhism:
Teaching outside formal study and sutra reading; not building up of any text; direct pointing to the real nature of Buddha inside heart; the reaching of the real nature as the reaching of the state of Buddha.
教外別傳，不立文字，直指人心，見性成佛
教外別傳，不立文字，直指人心，見性成佛
Among this poem, one sentence about: not building up of any text, this can represent the nature of negation in Zen teaching. However, there is not only negation in Zen teaching and in koan. Indeed, nature of negation is not permanent and forever, as in the development of Zen Buddhism in China, “not building up of any text(不立文字)” has evolved to “not departing from text(不離文字)” and then later back to “not building up of any text(不立文字)”. This evolvement can clearly show the negating nature in Zen Buddhism is the training of disregarding pre-existed persistence. And this can also say in the way of: first, the breaking down of “being” (破「有」)； and second, the breaking down of “nothingness”(破「無」). After those, there will be with no border in both being and nothingness. Hence, both saying of being and nothingness will also fine.
There is also one example in the Diamond Sutra (金剛經) about the path of awakening (Dharma 佛法):
The saying of the path of awakening, will immediate becomes not the path of awakening. However, this can still have the name of the path of awakening.
說是佛法，即非佛法，是名佛法。
The final stage of naming, can refer to both acceptable to name the path as or not as for awakening.
Forth, the level of language is referring to the emphasis of meta-language in koan. As in the previous discussion, I should say Prof. Fung’s arguments have paid the important of understanding the different levels of language in koan, while Prof. Searle’s theory may have the tendency to disconnect the linkage of the two plausible levels. Hence, the result of negation and contradiction is only at the level of understanding literal meaning of the sentence. Nevertheless, this level of understanding literal meaning of the sentence with absurdity is important to deliver speaker’s intention to the audience.
Fifth, certain acts can replace speech in understanding koan. It is very common to see the expression of silence in koan. Similar to the understanding of the nature of speech in speech act, there should be some acts performed as the saying of a speech. Certainly, saying nothing will be also one act performed and this is a clearer act as to perform something. This is clearer to show speaker’s intention toward speaker’s intended consequence. Hence, the consecutive meaning after silence is being expressed in a more “explicit” way. This shows a clear meaning of the intention of communication from the speaker. Indeed, the character of silence has been one of the distinguish character to deliver speaker’s intention in koan.
What is the real nature of satori and the ultimate truth
The real nature of satori should be the seeking of truth inside one’s oneself. We can see in the following cases when two Zen master give the explanation on the path of awakening:
The master explains to the public: “Forget about the path. There is no way for the working hard for the path of awakening, just the normal practice of daily activities: go toilet for faeces and pee, wearing clothes, eating and sleeping. Simpletons laugh at me and say the real wisdom come from the knowing of some knowledge. Ancients said: People who work hard outside oneself will only be diehards or foolish.”
(師示眾云：“道流。佛法無用功處，只是平常無事，屙屎送尿著衣吃飯，困來即卧。愚人笑我，智乃知焉。古人云：‘向外作工夫，總是痴頑漢。’”)[19]
(師示眾云：“道流。佛法無用功處，只是平常無事，屙屎送尿著衣吃飯，困來即卧。愚人笑我，智乃知焉。古人云：‘向外作工夫，總是痴頑漢。’”)[19]
The path of awakening is inside our common world, and no need to leave our common world for awakening. Leaving the world to seek for real wisdom, will like the seeking of rabbit’s horn.
佛法在世間。不離世間覺。離世覓菩提。恰如求兔角。[20]
佛法在世間。不離世間覺。離世覓菩提。恰如求兔角。[20]
We can see there is a common saying of seeking satori or path of awakening as something we have commonly known. As I mentioned previously, Fung has argued that there is no truth in terms of enlightenment, except the knowing of “spiritual reality.” I would like to say there should be truth in enlightenment. However, the truth in enlightenment should be something already exists among us, but not something we have to seek outside our own self. The overall resulting of enlightenment will be no change in own self, just as the example mentioned prior: “seeing mountain as mountain and water as water” and finally back to “seeing mountain as mountain and water as water again”. This is very similar to Suzuki’s saying of psychological transformation, rather than the seeking of some other real wisdom. Hence, this can explain how the “direct pointing to the real nature of Buddha inside heart, the reaching of the real nature as the reaching of the state of Buddha (直指人心，見性成佛) or the sudden awakening of the disciples in koan possible.
Summary: The approach of understanding anti-rationality from rational approach
The understanding koan as irrationality from an approach of rationality is pretty much like self-defeating. Still, I have tried to set up some constructive understanding of the possible rationality inside koan. Even though I tried to treat koan as a mode of communication as a rational act, but I also tried to show this assumption can really give out some constructive ways of understanding koan. So, I am not totally agreed with Prof. Fung’s argument on the self-defeating property in Suzuki’s rational approach on the understanding of the anti-rational property in koan. Further, I think Suzuki’s anti-rational approach is the special approach in Zen Buddhism. Suzuki’s meaning of anti-rational does equivalent to irrational. This approach is the making use of contradictions and absurdity as to bring out what the Zen master intended to express something which is inexpressible. Hence, I don’t think this anti-rational approach is something irrational, but indeed very rational.
I think this stage of anti-rational approach will share many similarities with the idea of bie in Zhuangzi. Zhuangzi used the metaphysical layer as the connection of physical layer objects. Similarly, Zen Buddhism has used the same approach. However, Zen Buddhism has focus more on the levelling of both the metaphysical and physical layers[21]. The focus on physical layer objects is more concrete than just the acknowledging of the metaphysical layer. I believer this is the real intention for Zen Buddhism as to drive people out of suffering. Koan is a way of teaching or a method to achieve this result. I am sure rational understanding can help us to know the real context in Buddhism. Otherwise, only treating koan as mystical and remain as something irrational will only stay at the blindness and suffer.
Reference
Austin, John Langshaw, How to do things with words, Harvard University Press, 1975
Faure, Bernard, Chan insights and oversights: an epistemological critique of the Chan tradition, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1993
Fung, Yiu-ming, “How to Do Zen (Chan) with Words: An Approach of Speech Act Theory.”, Searle’s Philosophy and Chinese Philosophy: Constructive Engagement, ed. by Bo Mou., Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2008, pp. 230-242
Wisdom, John, “Philosophical Perplexity”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society New Series, Vol. 37, (1936 - 1937), pp. 71-88
周裕锴，《禅宗语言研究入门》，上海市：復旦大學出版社，2009
周裕锴，《禅宗语言》，杭州：浙江人民出版社，1999
成中英，〈禪的詭論和邏輯〉，中華佛學學報第3期，1990，頁185-208
邱敏捷，〈巴壼天對「禪公案」的詮釋〉，臺大佛學硏究，第16期，民國97年12月，頁229-252。
疏志強，〈論禪宗修辭的非邏輯性〉，浙江師範大學學報(社會科學版)，2004年第2期第29卷。
[1] “Discussion on Making All Things Equal”, Zhuangzi Translation by Burton Watson, http://www.terebess.hu/english/chuangtzu.html, accessed on 5th January, 2011.
[2] Ibid, “Discussion on Making All Things Equal”.
[5] See “How to do Zen (Chan) with words? An approach of speech act theory”, by Yiu-ming Fung, and “Chan and Language” in Chan insights and oversights by Bernard Faure.
[7] Faure, Bernard, Chan insights and oversights : an epistemological critique of the Chan tradition, p.213
[10] Fung, Yiu-ming, “How to Do Zen (Chan) with Words: An Approach of Speech Act Theory.”, Searle’s Philosophy and Chinese Philosophy: Constructive Engagement, ed. by Bo Mou., Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2008.
No comments:
Post a Comment