Zen kōans: Unsolvable enigmas designed to break your brain - Puqun Li

翻译人员: Sally Yang 校对人员: congmei Han

How do we explain the unexplainable?

我们应如何解释不可解的事物？

This question has inspired numerous myths,

这个问题衍生出了无数神话、

religious practices,

宗教习俗

and scientific inquiries.

和科学调查。

But Zen Buddhists practicing throughout China from the 9th to 13th century

但九世纪至十三世纪的 中国古代禅师们

asked a different question –

却抱有不同的疑问——

why do we need an explanation?

为何我们需要找出解释呢？

For these monks, blindly seeking answers was a vice to overcome,

对这些禅师们来说，盲目地追寻答案 是一种需要克服的恶习，

and learning to accept the mysteries of existence

而学会接受存在之不可解

was the true path to enlightenment.

才是通往开悟的真正道路。

But fighting the urge to explain the unexplainable can be difficult.

然而，解释不可解之谜 常常是一种难以克服的冲动，

So to help practice living with these mysteries,

所以为了让自己习惯 和谜题共存，

the meditating monks used a collection of roughly 1,700 bewildering

禅师们借助了一千七百则 被人称作“公案”的

and ambiguous philosophical thought experiments called kōans.

令人不解、寓意不明的 哲学思想实验。

The name, originally gong-an in Chinese, translates to “public record or case."

“公案”原意指 官府用以判断是非的案牍。

But unlike real-world court cases, kōans were intentionally incomprehensible.

但禅宗的“公案”内容却扑朔迷离， 这是有意为之的。

They were surprising, surreal, and frequently contradicted themselves.

它们令人惊奇、十分荒诞、 且时常自我矛盾。

On the surface, they contained a proverb about the Zen Buddhist monastic code -

表面上，一则公案 似乎意指某条禅宗清规——

such as living without physical or mental attachments,

例如放下执念，

avoiding binary thinking,

避免二元对立的思维

and realizing one’s true “Buddha-nature."

和了解自己真正的“佛性”等等。

But by framing those lessons as illogical anecdotes,

但把这些教谕通过 不合逻辑的小故事呈现，

they became tests to help practicing monks learn to live with ambiguity and paradox.

它们就变成了一个个测试， 让禅师们习得与迷惘和矛盾共存的方法。

By puzzling through these confusing “cases,"

冥想中的禅师们分析“公案”时，

meditating monks could both internalize and practice Buddhist teachings.

便能同时内化和实践佛的教诲。

Hopefully, they would let go of the search for one true answer

假以时日，他们能学会放下 对唯一的真理的追寻，

and trigger a spiritual breakthrough.

抵达开悟的境界。

Since these are intentionally unexplainable,

由于公案本来就不可解释，

it would be misguided to try and decipher these stories ourselves.

我们不应该尝试着 自己解读这些故事。

But like the monks before us,

而应如从古至今的无数禅师一般，

we can puzzle over them together,

我们可以一起为它们绞尽脑汁，

and investigate just how resistant they are to simple explanations.

研究它们到底是多么难以 被简单地诠释。

Consider this kōan illustrating the practice of no-attachment.

比如这个描述“破我执”的公案。

Two monks, Tanzan and Ekido, are traveling together down a muddy road.

坦山禅师与一位僧人出游时， 走过一条泥泞路，

Ahead they see an attractive traveler, unable to cross the muddy path.

碰到了一名美貌的旅人 正因为无法跨过小路而烦恼。

Tanzan politely offers his help,

坦山礼貌地伸出援手，

carrying the traveler on his back across the street,

将旅人背过了泥泞路，

and placing her down without a word.

然后默默地把她放了下来。

Ekido was shocked.

一旁的朋友很吃惊。

According to monastic law, monks were not supposed to go near women,

根据佛教清规，僧人不可近女色，

let alone touch a beautiful stranger.

更不可触碰貌美的陌生人。

After miles of walking, Ekido could no longer restrain himself.

又走了几里路， 朋友才忍不住说道：

“How could you carry that woman?”

“你怎么能就这样把她背过去呢？“

Tanzan smiled, “I left the traveler there. Are you still carrying her?”

坦山笑道：“我早就把她放下了。 你还背着吗？“

Like all kōans, this story has numerous interpretations.

如同其它公案一样， 这个故事也有着多种诠释。

But one popular reading suggests

一种比较普遍的说法是

that despite never having physically carried the traveler,

坦山的僧人朋友虽未 实际上背负旅人，

Ekido broke monastic law by mentally "clinging to" the woman.

心中却还挂念着她， 打破了佛教清规。

This type of conflict –

这种矛盾揭示了

examining the grey area between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law –

法律的字面意义 和其精神之间的灰色地带，

was common in kōans.

是许多公案的主题。

In addition to exploring ambiguity,

除了探索事物的模棱两可，

kōans often ridiculed characters

公案时常挖苦那些

claiming total understanding of the world around them.

自以为无所不知的人。

One such example finds three monks

例如《风动幡动公案》中，

debating a temple flag rippling in the wind.

三个僧人对着寺庙前的 旗子展开的争论。

The first monk refers to the flag as a moving banner,

第一个僧人说旗子在动，

while the second monk insists that they are not seeing the flag move,

但第二个僧人却认为旗子没动，

but rather the wind blowing.

是风在动。

They argue back and forth, until finally, a third monk intervenes,

他们争论不休， 直到第三个僧人打断他们，

“It is not the flag moving, nor the wind blowing,

说：“不是旗子在动， 也不是风在动，

but rather the movement of your minds!”

而是你们的心在动。”

One interpretation of this kōan plays on the supposed wisdom of the arguing monks –

这个公案可以被看作 对前两个僧人的“智慧”的讽刺。

the first asserting the importance of the observable world,

第一个执着于 可观察的世界的重要性，

the second favoring deeper knowledge we can infer from that world.

第二个更注重于考察其背后的奥义。

But each monk’s commitment to his own “answer”

但两个僧人对自己的“答案”的执着

blinds him to the other’s insight, and in doing so,

使他们拒绝认同对方的看法。

如此，他们违反了佛教的根本理念： 摒除二元对立的思维。

defies an essential Buddhist ideal: abolishing binary thinking.

The third monk identifies their conflict as a perceptual one –

第三个僧人认为问题在于 两人的心被外物迷惑了，

both arguing monks fail to see the larger picture.

一叶障目，不见泰山。

Of course, all these interpretations only hint at how to wrestle with these kōans.

当然了，这些诠释只不过提示了 我们要如何看待这些公案。

Neither the wisdom from practicing monks before us,

无论是前人的智慧，

nor the supposedly wise characters in these stories

还是故事中的得道高僧，

can resolve them for you.

都无法真正解答它们。

That’s because the purpose of these kōans isn’t reaching a simple solution.

因为公案存在的意义 不在于找出解答。

It’s the very act of struggling with these paradoxical puzzles

寻找答案的过程本身

which challenge our desire for resolution,

考验着我们对寻找出答案的执着

and our understanding of understanding itself.

以及我们对自己的 思考过程了解多少。