Discussion of a Zen riddle (koan)

This is different to my usual posting, although it does refer to my previous poem ‘Nature, a million-year altar’. This is a rudimentary explanation of the first two lines of my poem. 

 I wrote them so it would reflect zen koans, riddles that are utilised to deepen meditation and understanding of zen Buddhist concepts. Three Pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau is a good introduction to zen, if you would like to take your interest further. 

 

Meditation is the space between 1 and 2.

 

Meditation in its purest form, in its goal and intention is to generate awareness. I say generate but rather it is an uncovering of a nature that is deeply intrinsic to us, we all harbour Buddha nature but it is clouded by ignorance (the misperception of the true nature of reality), attachment and laziness, among other “kleshas” (a Sanskrit word describing aspects that keep buddha nature away).

The numbers 1 and 2 are distinct. If we are aware or acknowledge either of them, that is what we are aware of. Thoughts of 1 or 2. What is between 1 and 2?  On one level, nothing. There is 1, there is 2. That is the dichotomy. Mathematically speaking, you may argue that there is 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and so on.

What is between those numbers? Logically, there is an infinite number between the numbers 1 and 2, a concept called continuum. It goes on and on, forever, dividing smaller and smaller. Well, why is that awareness? Say the number 1, then pause before 2, then say 2.  What exists there? Is it the continuum, is it your bated breath for the number 2, acknowledgement of the past (1), preparation of the future (2)?

It is the pause between two distinct items that is limitless. Existing in that continuum. For example, you pause before magnificent sunset, there are no thoughts for just a second or two, just the sun setting and your awareness of it. Maybe for a moment following, you disengage from the subject-object dichotomy, yourself and the sun, and your awareness is expansive, it surrounds you and everything around you, pure and spacious (mystical experiences usually report feeling that “everything is one”).

This is the concept of ultimate reality, compared to relative reality, which is limited by our cognitive capabilities and level of concentration, your everyday experiences.

1 and 2 may also represent the duality of the mind. Our habitual tendency to classify anything into either good or bad or self and other, into any dichotomy may lead to suffering, an aversion to the ‘bad’ and an attachment to the ‘good’. It is a simplified way of perceiving reality and often obscures it. It also reinforces our ego, our identification with ourselves and separation from the world. This is opposite to the Buddhist teaching of Annata (no-self), that the self is an illusion.  So what is between the duality of 1 and 2? It is the infinite middle ground, where 1 and 2 don’t exist, the duality dissolves into non-duality. It is the limitless continuum, which can be achieved through the zen practice of Shikantaza, ‘just sitting’.

Another interpretation I may add, came clear when I had a conversation with my mum about this koan.  We can order how we receive information of any kind into stimuli, perception (the recognition of the object) and cognition (thoughts about the object). Plugging this into to our koan ,  meditation is the space between 1 and 2 , we can assign stimuli to 1,  cognition into 2  and perception would be our space between 1 and 2. Stimuli, for example a tree enters our perception through sensory organs, eyes and ears in this case. Perception follows, we see the tree, we hear the tree. Then comes cognition, thoughts about the tree, I wonder what kind it is, does it bear fruit, how beautiful and how tall. Now, taking in the koan, the space between stimuli and cognition is perception, is awareness of the object. If we rest in this space, we may experience the limitless, the continuum previously mentioned. We recognise there is no separation between the self and the object.

 This could be achieved when using an object to meditate with, whatever that may be. We rest in perception, in awareness, not following through to cognition.

 

 

  Mediation is the balance of all 3.  

 

Here I use the term mediation inspired by the statistical concept that I studied earlier in the summer, whereby we try to understand at what point does the X variable impacts the Y variable (the outcome). It may be that a mediator variable effecting X means that the Y variable is also sensitive to changes in the mediator variable. For example, cognitive strain mediates the relationship between poverty and test scores.

If we assume that 1 is the X variable, 2 is the Y variable, and awareness, between 1 and 2, is the mediator variable. Awareness could have several meanings including mindfulness (being present in the moment) or a luminous mind (the minds fundamental non-dual nature as we described earlier)

Changes to awareness (mediator variable) changes 1 thus impacting 2. Awareness mediates the relationship between 1 and 2. If we borrow the meaning of mediation in a legal context, we can plug in awareness as the neutral third party that aims to solve the conflict between two things, whatever they may be. Here, it is the numbers 1 or 2, which could represent several things. We could say awareness mediates the relationship between the past and future, the mediating variable being awareness of the present moment. Or  awareness mediates the opinion of one person with another person, awareness mediates the relationship between thoughts and feelings. Awareness may also be a useful mediating factor when considering one’s own cognitive dissonance (holding two opposing beliefs at the same time).

In this amateur koan, mediation is the balance of awareness, and two other things. To have an unbiased perspective that is true to the nature of reality changes one thing to impact another. It balances it.

 

 

I wonder if there is other interpretations to this amateur koan. Feel free to share, I’d love to hear them.