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

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: Helen Chang

How do we explain the unexplainable?

我們要如何解釋無法解釋的事物？

This question has inspired numerous myths,

這個問題是許多神話、

religious practices,

宗教活動，

and scientific inquiries.

及科學調查的靈感來源。

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

但從第九世紀到第十三世紀 在中國各地的禪學者

asked a different question –

卻問了不同的問題：

why do we need an explanation?

為什麼我們需要解釋？

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

對這些僧人來說，盲目地尋求答案 是一種需要克服的不當行為，

and learning to accept the mysteries of existence

而學習去接受存在的謎

was the true path to enlightenment.

才是通往頓悟的真實道路。

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

但我們都會想要解釋無法解釋的 事物，很難對抗這衝動。

So to help practice living with these mysteries,

所以，為了練習與這些謎共存，

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

禪定的僧侶會使用一系列 大約一千七百則公案，

and ambiguous philosophical thought experiments called kōans.

公案是些讓人困惑 且模糊的哲學思想實驗。

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

在中文，公案這個詞意思

是「公共的紀錄或案件」。

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

但不像真實世界中的法庭案件， 公案是刻意要讓人無法理解的。

They were surprising, surreal, and frequently contradicted themselves.

它們很讓人驚訝、超現實， 且常常本身就是矛盾的。

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

表面上公案包含 和禪苑清規有關的禪語，

such as living without physical or mental attachments,

比如破我執、

avoiding binary thinking,

不二，

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

以及了解自己的真實「佛性」。

But by framing those lessons as illogical anecdotes,

但，把那些教訓塑造成 沒有邏輯的軼事，

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

它們就成了測試，協助修行的僧人

學習如何與模糊和自相矛盾共存。

By puzzling through these confusing “cases,"

在這些讓人困惑的 「案件」中冥思苦想，

meditating monks could both internalize and practice Buddhist teachings.

禪定的僧侶能內化並實踐佛的教導，

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

希望能夠放下對於 單一真實答案的追尋，

and trigger a spiritual breakthrough.

獲得開悟。

Since these are intentionally unexplainable,

因為公案的原本目的 就是要無法解釋，

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

如果我們試圖自己解讀 這些故事，就被誤導了。

But like the monks before us,

但就像之前的僧人，

we can puzzle over them together,

我們可以一起冥思苦想，

and investigate just how resistant they are to simple explanations.

研究看看它們對於 簡單解釋的抵抗力有多強。

Consider this kōan illustrating the practice of no-attachment.

來看看這個描述「破我執」的公案。

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

坦山和尚與一道友 兩人一同走在泥濘路上。

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

前方有名漂亮的旅人 無法越過泥濘路。

Tanzan politely offers his help,

坦山和尚很有禮貌地表示願意協助，

carrying the traveler on his back across the street,

背著旅人過街，

and placing her down without a word.

再將她放下來，什麼也沒說。

Ekido was shocked.

道友很吃驚。

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

根據僧侶的法則， 僧侶不應該靠近女人，

let alone touch a beautiful stranger.

更不能去觸碰漂亮的陌生人。

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

走了幾哩路之後，道友無法再忍了。

“How could you carry that woman?”

「你怎麼能去背那名女子？」

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

坦山和尚微笑：「我早已放下 那旅人了。你還背著她嗎？」

Like all kōans, this story has numerous interpretations.

和所有的公案一樣， 這個故事有多種詮釋。

But one popular reading suggests

但一種普遍的解讀是

that despite never having physically carried the traveler,

雖然道友沒實際背負旅人，

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

但他已打破戒律， 因為他心理上還「依戀」著她。

This type of conflict –

這種矛盾探究

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

戒律的字面和真意之間的灰色地帶，

was common in kōans.

在公案裡很常見。

In addition to exploring ambiguity,

除了探索不明確的模稜兩可，

kōans often ridiculed characters

公案也常會揶揄

claiming total understanding of the world around them.

宣稱完全了解周遭世界的角色。

One such example finds three monks

舉《風動幡動公案》為例，

三個僧人針對寺廟的幡 被風吹動的辯論。

debating a temple flag rippling in the wind.

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

第一個僧人說是幡動，

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

第二個僧人堅稱不是幡動

but rather the wind blowing.

而是風動。

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

他們來來回回地爭辯，直到最後，

第三個僧人（六祖惠能大師）介入，

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

說：「不是風動，不是幡動，

but rather the movement of your minds!”

仁者心動！」

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

有個公案的詮釋點出 爭辯的二僧看似很有智慧——

the first asserting the importance of the observable world,

甲僧主張世間的重要性，

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

乙僧偏好深探世間的智慧。

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

二位僧人堅信自己的「答案」，

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

讓他們盲目，看不到另一人的洞見，

因而違反了佛教的根本理念：不二。

defies an essential Buddhist ideal: abolishing binary thinking.

The third monk identifies their conflict as a perceptual one –

丙僧指出兩僧感受外境而起爭端，

both arguing monks fail to see the larger picture.

爭論的雙方都沒看到全貌。

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

當然，這些詮釋全只暗示 要如何看待這些公案。

Neither the wisdom from practicing monks before us,

之前修行僧人的智慧，

nor the supposedly wise characters in these stories

或這些故事中的得道高僧，

can resolve them for you.

都無法為你解答。

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

那是因為，這些公案的目的 不是要給出簡單的解決方案。

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

真正的目的，是希望讓大家 掙脫這些自相矛盾的難題，

which challenge our desire for resolution,

這些難題挑戰著我們 想要得到解答的慾望，

and our understanding of understanding itself.

以及我們對於「了解」 本身的了解有多少。