Staff Example

[den...@osu.edu]

Today, we talked about he Staff example. That Lin-Chi asked his
students what the staff is and one of his students beat him with it.
This was the correct answer because in Zen the student was not able to
say that it was a staff. If he said that it was a staff that was
wrong because then it would be a concept. My question is why is the
master allowed to call is a staff? If he is calling it a staff then
isn't he involved in concepts. If he is seeing concepts then he
should not be a Zen master because he has not eliminated all concepts.

[Kevin Chung]

Isn't it the fact that it was his host-guest thing? For example, it
was his
intepretation of the staff, while the guy who grabbed it from him hit
him with the staff, and that was his interpretation. Coudn't you
argue also, that since there are labels to everything, such as
monitor, keyboard, apple...that those are concepts as well? In a Zen
world, would that be wrong to classify stuff? Because without it,
everything would be nameless...and that doesn't seem right.

[Nicholaos Jones]

Classifying things is fine, so long as we don't get trapped by the
classifications and allow them to set the context for us, cutting us
off from a mindful and responsive experience of the present moment.
Classification is useful as a practical tool for getting by -- and
that is all. (This same theme is in Nagarjuna.)

The point about Lin-Chi getting to call it a staff because he is
setting the context is good: he opens the exchange by setting the
context that presents the most difficulty for someone who has not
attained nirvana yet. But his setting the context does not mean he
buys into it -- in the same way that a coach might do something in a
certain way without thinking that is the best way to do things (maybe
doing things in less-than-the-best way is what best allows the student
to have an insight).