Even if koans like this have some legitimate insight buried in them, I wonder if the signal-to-noise ratio is too high to reliably extract that insight. Accurate, rational communication seems to be at least as hard as internal rationality.
I therefore propose an exercise of “reckless interpretation”: Read the koan at a very surface level, then generate an arbitrary interpretation. Don’t worry about it being too simple, too silly, or missing the point: The point is to miss the point. If these interpretations cannot be easily refuted with a technique other than “no, he meant it this way”, then the koan is probably too ambiguous to serve as a useful communication device.
Here’s mine for this one: Joshu is not teaching, he simply dislikes dirty dishes. The monk mistakes this for a legitimate insight, and by that unintended insight, the monk is enlightened.
A few reckless interpretations of mine:
Joshu was able to determine what the monk ate, what type of dish he ate it from and whether he had washed it. This made the monk realize that his life was highly predictable, and he needed to vary it more. Or it made the monk realize that Joshu had Sherlock Holmes-style deductive capabilities. Or it made the monk realize that Joshu was telepathic. Alternatively, Joshu guessed incorrectly about the monk’s diet and dishes, which made the monk realize that Joshu was no less susceptible to mistakes than anyone else.
Or it made the monk realize that Joshu was telepathic.
This seems refutable on the basis that monks probably enjoy a very restricted diet, and inferring telepathy from a correct guess in such a limited domain is both pretty unlikely and pretty silly.
Alternatively, Joshu guessed incorrectly about the monk’s diet and dishes, which made the monk realize that Joshu was no less susceptible to mistakes than anyone else.
I really like this one. It contains a legitimate and worthwhile insight (that teachers are fallible), and I don’t know how I’d go about refuting it.
Even if koans like this have some legitimate insight buried in them, I wonder if the signal-to-noise ratio is too high to reliably extract that insight. Accurate, rational communication seems to be at least as hard as internal rationality.
I therefore propose an exercise of “reckless interpretation”: Read the koan at a very surface level, then generate an arbitrary interpretation. Don’t worry about it being too simple, too silly, or missing the point: The point is to miss the point. If these interpretations cannot be easily refuted with a technique other than “no, he meant it this way”, then the koan is probably too ambiguous to serve as a useful communication device.
Here’s mine for this one: Joshu is not teaching, he simply dislikes dirty dishes. The monk mistakes this for a legitimate insight, and by that unintended insight, the monk is enlightened.
A few reckless interpretations of mine: Joshu was able to determine what the monk ate, what type of dish he ate it from and whether he had washed it. This made the monk realize that his life was highly predictable, and he needed to vary it more. Or it made the monk realize that Joshu had Sherlock Holmes-style deductive capabilities. Or it made the monk realize that Joshu was telepathic. Alternatively, Joshu guessed incorrectly about the monk’s diet and dishes, which made the monk realize that Joshu was no less susceptible to mistakes than anyone else.
This seems refutable on the basis that monks probably enjoy a very restricted diet, and inferring telepathy from a correct guess in such a limited domain is both pretty unlikely and pretty silly.
I really like this one. It contains a legitimate and worthwhile insight (that teachers are fallible), and I don’t know how I’d go about refuting it.