Some minor details about the original koan that are vital: I believe that the story says that Gutei was in the habit of waggling his finger (or some such similar behavior) when answering a question - not that he would just answer questions by raising his finger. The student got into the habit of imitating him. To further clarify, after cutting off the kid’s finger, an exchange occurs between Gutei and student. Gutei raises his finger, and the kid, out of reflex, does the same - but he doesn’t have a finger. Enlightenment ensues. Presumably what went on in the student’s mind is that he reacted out of reflex, and for just a second it seemed to him he had a finger. Then he realized the illusion. Hence the power of the mind to create false reality was made potently clear to him. Many koans are variations on this theme.
The somewhat violent nature of the koan is also not unusual. One reason this story survives is because it is a colorful example of what a brilliant teacher Gutei was. This is illustrated by the fact that he was able to A) analyze the situation and come up with an effective means of communicating illusion vs reality to the student - well enough and strongly enough to achieve a breakthrough - and B) not afraid to use unconventional methods to do so, if it got the point across.
These stories serve not only as parables on the Dharma (illusion vs. reality in this case) but also as commentaries on what makes skillful teaching.
Here’s the story as it appears in The Gateless Gate, by Mu-mon, from the book Zen Flesh, Zen Bones, collected by Paul Reps, 1989 printing:
So in my version at least, there is no waggling, nor a verbal exchange between Gutei and the kid, though perhaps a more profound exchange takes place. It really doesn’t accomplish much to analyze exactly how the above led to enlightenment for the kid, or how it can do the same for you in the comfort of your home. That’s like asking what’s going on in the Christian monk’s mind, that he’s able to touch the Godhead after whipping himself with wet ropes for a few hours. By throwing words on it until it’s shaped like something you recognize, you obscure the whole point of the experience, which is pretty much to transcend stuff like language in favor of direct experience of Universal Truth, whatever that is.
Referring to the finger cutting and wet rope beating, this type of thing is suspicious. Naturally anything so overwhelming will make a person feel overwhelmed, which is what an experience of enlightenment or of the Divine love or whatever of the Divine is about. Also, human nature because it is monkey nature has an element of cruelty, masochism, sadism in it. Anything extreme which is not also pleasant should be dismissed on these grounds alone. And in addition, while learning anything new is unpleasant in large part, it doesn’t have to be TOO unpleasant. Thus in raising children certain disciplines must be imposed on them as it must on new workers. Discipline I mean just as doing definite assigned things regularly for awhile until the new thing is learned. And another thing, life is always already imposing itself on us with all too unpleasant things for us to be looking for wet ropes. Speaking of child rearing, dog training, and so on, you wouldn’t beat a dog half to death to train him or make him love you, which is exactly what the gods of religion are all about. An excessive interest in religion is always a sign of mental instability, I read in a book once. Sermon ended.
Without getting into the efficacy of such a method, you’re confusing the “love God” aim of mainstream Christianity with the “know/experience God” aim of mystics. The Gnostic monk whips himself with the ropes, the aboriginal candidate for manhood wanders starving in the wilderness for several days, etc., not because they believe that their god demands it of them, but because mortification of the flesh is one of the tried-and-true methods throughout human history for attaining religious ecstacy.
That having been said, I wasn’t trying to draw a parallel with the physical act of cutting off the kid’s finger when I brought up our friend the Gnostic and his wet ropes. I was drawing a comparison between the ineffability (is that a word?) of the two experiences. There’s no way you’re going to put enlightenment (or whatever you want to call it) into words, because by its nature it transcends language.
Been thinking about this for a few days. Couldn’t leave it alone, I guess. I would agree that words fail when one attempts to describe such experiences, but I don’t think that it’s proper to conclude we should not attempt to talk about them. Yes, real dharma can only be communicated through direct experience (hence the need for relationships with skillful teachers) but a lot of the groundwork and understanding has been passed down in written and spoken form as well. I came to a lot of understanding using books and lectures as a starting point.
Giving a example of how one might interpret Gutei’s encounter with his student may only approximate or guess at the real experience, but it may also serve to help foster understanding of the mechanisms by which Zen seeks to bring greater awareness to the individual, so I think it’s good to discuss, even while keeping in mind how limiting language is.
BTW, I originally encountered this story with a different ending which, roughly paraphrased, was:
with no mention of enlightenment. I tend to favor relating the story in this way, since it communicates that a lesson was learned without necesarily dragging the baggage associated with “enlightenment” into the frame.
Well shit, it’s not like I’m a Bodhisattva or anything over here. Everything I know about this subject (which really isn’t much at all) I learned from books myself. I didn’t mean to come across as if I’m against the attempt to talk about these experiences. On the contrary, I could talk about it all day. It just seemed as though you were attempting to explain the thought process behind enlightenment (the outcome of my version of the story). Since in your version (and I’m not sure which one I like better; they both make different points, and I’m hard pressed to choose between them), the baggage of enlightenment isn’t present, your explanation of the story makes a lot more sense to me. I suspect we’re both on the same page, here, but have until this point perhaps been falling prey to the limitations of our words.
“Unconventional methods”??? In this country a teacher can’t even use corporal punishment. I’ll bet if a teacher started disecting your child, you would not talk about what a skillful teacher he is, even if he got his point across.
