It really makes you wonder how the hell they got that far while still believing that the wrong answer could turn you into a fox.
If one’s conception of ‘the law of causation’ is constituted partly by the belief that you can turn into a fox, then it will take a while to figure out that you can talk about the law of causation without believing that you can turn into a fox.
I think you’re being a bit harsh (I hope out of ignorance). It is a ridiculous belief, yes, and the Zen teachers were perfectly aware of it. If I may quote from the venerable Wumen who compiled The Gateless Gate, specifically his comments on this koan:
`The enlightened man is not subject.′ How can this answer make the monk a fox?
`The enlightened man is at one with the law of causation.′ How can this answer make the fox emancipated?
I edited my comment to point out what I was replying to—I was confused when you said that I was being harsh, when I was merely offering an explanation for EY’s observation.
Indeed, I agree that they were aware it’s ridiculous. Note that Hyakujo saw an old man, not a fox.
If one’s conception of ‘the law of causation’ is constituted partly by the belief that you can turn into a fox, then it will take a while to figure out that you can talk about the law of causation without believing that you can turn into a fox.
EDIT: made context clearer
I think you’re being a bit harsh (I hope out of ignorance). It is a ridiculous belief, yes, and the Zen teachers were perfectly aware of it. If I may quote from the venerable Wumen who compiled The Gateless Gate, specifically his comments on this koan:
I edited my comment to point out what I was replying to—I was confused when you said that I was being harsh, when I was merely offering an explanation for EY’s observation.
Indeed, I agree that they were aware it’s ridiculous. Note that Hyakujo saw an old man, not a fox.