berarti anda bisa mengatakan membunuh, merampok menipu dengan tujuan menyampaikan dharma maka seharusnya dalam kasus tertentu perilaku tersebut tidak bermasalah?
Dalam catatan kita berapa banyak perbuatan demikian yang bisa menyampaikan dharma? Apakah ada kasus di mana perbuatan yang anda sebutkan memberikan dampak postif kepada si pelaku, korban maupun orang lain? Sebaliknya, tarian, nyanyian dan musik cenderung lebih netral dibandingkan dengan perbuatan-perbuatan yang anda sebutkan. Mereka adalah media netral yang bisa digunakan sebagai penyampaian pesan yang beragam. Baik atau buruk tergantung dari cara memanfaatkannya.
pernah mendengar cerita zen yang membunuh kucing?
pernah dengar koan Zen dimana jika bertemu Buddha, bunuh Buddha?
mohon kata "bunuh" di telaah dengar benar!
Nanchuan melihat para bhikkhu dari gedung bagian timur dan barat berkelahi atas seekor kucing. Mengukur ukuran kucing tersebut, ia mengatakan kepada para bhikkhu: “Jika salah satu dari kalian dapat mengatakan kalimat dari Zen, anda akan menyelamatkan kucing.” Tidak seorang pun menjawab. Nanchuan memotong kucing tersebut menjadi dua. Malam itu Zhaozho kembali ke biara dan Nanchuan menyampaikan kepadanya apa yang telah terjadi. Zhaozho melepas sandal-sandal-nya, meletakkan sandal-sandal tersebut di kepalanya, dan berjalan keluar. Nanchuan berkata: “Jika saja anda berada di sana, anda pasti menyelamatkan kucing tersebut.”
silahkan telaah.
The koan “Nansen Cuts the Cat in Two” is, as I see it, one of the most important koans ever. It not only reveals the deepest of the Zen of Hui-neng, but it also depicts the main conflict within Zen, that is to say the friction between the Gradual and the Sudden Schools during the Tang and Sung years.What comes first, Sunyata or Prajna? The koan gives a lucid answer, an answer that divided Zen into Soto and Rinzai.
Nansen Cuts the Cat in Two (The Gateless Gate, Case 14; translated by Koun Yamada. Center Publications 1979)
The Case
Once the monks of the eastern and western Zen halls were quarreling about a cat. Nansen held up the cat and said, “You monks! If one of you can say a word, I will spare the cat. If you can’t say anything, I will put it to the sword.” No one could answer, so Nansen finally slew it. In the evening, when Joshu returned, Nansen told him what had happened. Joshu, thereupon, took off his sandals, put them on his head and walked off. Nansen said, “If you had been there, I could have spared the cat.”
Mumon’s Commentary
What is the meaning of Joshu’s putting his sandals on his head? If you can give a turning word concerning this matter, you will be able to see that Nansen’s command was not meaningless. But if you can’t, look out! Danger!
The Verse
Had Joshu been there He would have given the command instead Had he snatched away the sword, Even Nansen would have begged for his life.
Why does Nansen kill the cat?
Nansen cuts off the entangled discussion of the monks by using “the sword of Prajna”. Nansen’s sword points to Prajna or wisdom. Nansen is the Bodhisattva Manjushri.
Manjushri’s most dynamic attribute is his Vajra sword. The sword cuts through ignorance and the entanglements of conceptual views. It cuts away ego and self-created obstacles. It can cut things in two, but it can also cut into one, by cutting the self-other dichotomy. It is said the sword can both give and take life.
Verse 31 from Yoka Daishi’s “Song Of Enlightenment”:
A man of great will carries with him a sword of Prajna, Whose flaming Vajra-blade cuts all the entanglements of knowledge and ignorance; It not only smashes in pieces the intellect of the philosophers But disheartens the spirit of the evil ones.
So when Nansen kills the cat he points to non-duality. To show the monks that Zen is not based on words, he points to emptiness of thought by cutting the cat in two, that is, cutting LOGIC thus conveying non-thought or non-duality. Nansen tries to remove the dual and logic thinking of the monks.
The problem with logic is, that logic is relative, not absolute. What is logical depends on where one is in time and space. So there is not one absolute logic, there are many “logics”. What is evident seen from one position is not evident seen from another position, hence logic is not logic but conflict. There IS nothing high or low, right or wrong. High or low and wright or wrong are concepts, the result of comparison not reality itself. That means our “logical” conclusions are conditioned and relative and this is the main source of illusions, conflicts, suffering and war.
But it is Joshu not Nansen who knows the true method of how to use the sword of Prajna. Why could the answer of Joshu have saved the cat’s life? Because Joshu demonstrates his method is superior to that of Nansen. Nansen makes the mistake of not only negating words but also of negating forms. He is actually killing life through his method of total negation of both words and forms. Nansen’s sword of negation becomes a pointer to nothingness, not to emptiness, that is, wu-nien, no thought. The way of Nansen is nihilism, the destruction of life.
Moreover, Nansen is doing an act of will when he cuts duality, but using will is the same as creating duality, a split between what ought to be and what is. Instead cultivation must be carried out by non-cultivation. That is what Joshu does. A mirror cannot be made by grinding a brick. The ordinary way, the ordinary mind is the Way. The method of Nansen is intellectualization which Zen utterly opposes, since intellectual efforts create duality hence karma.
Joshu knows that to gain true insight, negation (denial) of not only thoughts but also of forms (appearences) only lead to nothingness. But nothingness is a dual concept, an abstraction, since it can only exist opposed to something. Hence negation of forms becomes denial of reality. Forms are THE empty reality, they are “what is”. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form Negation of forms is thus gazing at a void and reality freezes into an abstraction of nothingness.
Hui-neng clarified, that negation is crucial when it comes to words and concepts, but it is a big mistake to use negation when it comes to conceive reality as it is. To overcome such an extreme nihilism one has to use NEGATION OF NEGATION that is, instead of excluding forms (negating appearances) one has to include forms, that is, see thoughts (and cats) as they appear in suchness, in a detached, empty manner.That is seeing, yet not seeing. Its not pure negation, it is the middle way.
See things as they appear,in emptiness, is seeing with MIND (Hsing), which is very different from staring at a negated nothingness. The killing of the cat is a negation of form, of life. Seeing life as it is, empty yet not empty, is Prajna. Negating reality is the killing of life.
Joshu experiences forms as functions of Mind, not as something which must be cut to nothingness.Seeing with the eyes of Prajna is experiencing that the spirituality of life is vital.
Below is a small and incredible sharp mono on the difference between seeing in nothingness and in emptiness.
A mondo on Prajna
Yunju was crossing the river with Dongshan.
Dongshan said, “How deep is it?”
Yunju said, “it’s not wet”
Dongshan said, “You rustic!”
Yunju said, “What would you say, Master?”
Dongshan said, “Not dry” .
The small mondo is beautiful and exceptionally sharp: “it’s not wet” points to emptiness and “Not dry” points to Prajna (or Mind) because:
“Not wet” leaves out anything, it points to nothingness. If not wet, then what is it? There is no pointer to any reality. The negation is total.
“Not dry” is not a total negation. “Not dry” points to water without using the word “water”. The negation is just a negation of words but not of our conscience, our mind. It is empty mind or emptiness.
Hence “not wet” is not prajna, it is just pointing to nothingness, whereas “not dry” is Prajna since it points to water, but not to the concept of “water”. Hence it is “knowing in emptiness”. Knowledge not based on words but on intuition is Prajna. It is the middle Way.
So a NATURAL response to circumstances, not a response conditioned by the intellect is the Way and that is the way of Joshu. Nansen represents the Zen INTELLECT, while Joshu is the SPIRIT of Zen. Joshu puts the shoes on his head thereby showing his empty innocence, while Nansen demonstrates his rational goal and will by cutting the cat in two. In order to cut duality he creates duality. The intellect IS dual. It is a killer because when one chooses A one must logical reject (kill) B. The mistake of Nansen is his choosing which is conditioned by his words. He had to kill the cat. Words create their own reality.
Why would even Nansen have begged for his life had Joshu snatched away the sword? Because the ultimate truth cannot be reached with language, doctrines, not even with negation. Prajna can only be reached with a Mind totally devoid of any concepts, but not devoid of conscience. One has to negate the the idea of oneself. Nansen has to turn the sword, the knife, against the concept of himself not against a cat.
A Japanese Zen Master in the Tokugawa period named Shido Bunan had a waka poem:
Die while alive, and be completely dead,
then do whatever you will, all is good.
The koan is an attack on any tendency to intellectualize Zen. It is not an incident that Nansen says “You monks! If one of you can say a word, I will spare the cat. This “say a word” is the key to the main question of the koan and the silence of Joshu is the answer of the koan. The koan is a defense of the most ancient definition of zen: “A specific transmission outside writings, no dependence with respect to words and letters ·”
As formulated by Yi-hsuan:
“Only do ordinary things with no special efforts, relieve your bowels, pass water wear your clothes, eat your food, and, when tired, lie down! Simple fellows will laugh at you, but the wise will understand.”
The koan is deeply rooted in Hui-neng Zen with its emphasis on suchness and Prajna as opposed to a more formalized type of Zen.The distinctions between monastic authorities and lay followers and between Buddha and ordinary being are here called into question by the person of Joshu who has a striking similarity with Vimalakīrti, a layman and ordinary man of the world who nevertheless rivals the Bodhisattva Mañjuśrī (Nansen) himself in understanding.
In essence, Vimalakirti (Joshu) clears up the confusions surrounding the central Buddhist concept of emptiness, or voidness— presenting it not as nihilism but rather “as the joyous and compassionate commitment to living beings born form an unwavering confrontation with the inconceivable profundity of ultimate reality.”
The koan shows a turn in its presentation of the Mahāyāna teaching of emptiness (śūnyatā). The koan is a homage to Joshu who demonstrates the ‘thunderous silence of Vimalakīrti’ and the admiration is understandable. The succinct and profound sayings and koans of Joshu are unsurpassable in their Zen purity.
However, there is a more genuine Zen way of expressing the meaning of “Nansen kills the cat”, since koans are certainly not meant to be interpreted but to be understood in suchness that is, as self-evident:
Cut words about what is, but do not cut what is.
The Haiku poet and Zen monk Basho is beautifully in accordance with this principle:
A flash of lightening:
throug the darkness goes
the cry of a night heron
Note
It is not even worth discussing whether Nansen actually killed the cat or not, since the killing of the cat is nothing but a pointer. “Killing the cat” is Zen talk just like when Zen Master Lin Chi says, “If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha. If you meet a Patriarch, kill the Patriarch.” Zen sayings and koans use concrete phenomena as pointers to abstract principles to avoid theorizing and speculations. Koans are always formulated concretely not philosophical. They are upayic or pedagogic answers or stories by the masters.
www.zenhsin.org