u/WheresNorthFromHere7

>Once when the master was drawing water from the well, he saw Nan-ch’uan (Nansen) passing by.

Then, hanging on to a pillar, he extended his legs down into the well and shouted, “Save me! Save me!”

>Nan-ch’uan held up a ladder and cried out, “One, two, three, four, five.”

>The master immediately got up and gave his thanks to Nan-ch’uan saying, “Just now, thanks to you, I was saved.”

Joshu put himself in a well and asked for help. Signifying similarly to the previous case, that people put themselves in problematic situations.

Nansen picked up a ladder and gave him the literal steps to get out? Climb the ladder, 1-5 steps.

Joshu clearly not needing physically saved from harm gets himself out of the well, but thanks Nansen for helping him with his made up problem.

>Once the master was in charge of keeping the fires at the monastery.

>One day, while everyone was out tending the garden, the master went inside the monk’s hall and shouted, “Help, fire! Help, fire!”

>Everyone rushed back to the monk’s hall, but the master had closed and barred the door. No one knew what to do.

>Finally, Nanch’uan (Nansen) took the key from its hook and threw it into the room through the window.'

>1 In temples doors are locked from the outside.

Joshu - demonstrating how people act about seeking enlightenment. Looking outside for help.

Joshu - puts up a barrier to his enlightenment, such as people do to themselves with intellectual interpretations. How will you get inside?

Nansen - throws the key through the window (of the mind). The teacher shows him the key to get out, what he does with it is up to him. The door isn't locked. Will he let himself be free, or will he stay barricaded in the building?

>The master asked Nan-ch’uan (Nansen), “Where does a person who knows what there is to know’ go to?”

>Nan-ch’uan said, “They go to be a water buffalo at the house of a lay person at the foot of the mountain.”

>The master said, “I am grateful for your instruction. ”Nan-ch’uan said, “At midnight last night, the moonlight came through the window.”

Green's footnote

>To be enlightened to the reality of the universe and oneself — of the interdependence of all existence. This “one great fact of interpenetrating causation” was the only aspect of Buddhist doctrine that all the various sects agreed upon in Chao-chou’s (Joshu’s) time.

Green's footnote is confusing. Is this accurate?

What I see:

Joshu - Where does an enlightened person go after enlightenment?

Nansen - Here is a concept. I am showing you that you're using concepts to find something that can't be used as a concept.

Joshu - You're right, I am doing that. Here's something that my awareness showed me.

As a side: I keep writing Joshu as Josh. I'm sorry if I missed any.

>Nan-ch’uan (Nansen) came to speak to the monks. The master asked, “Bright or dark?”’

>Nan-ch’uan returned to his room.

>The master left the hall and said, “At one question of mine that old priest was forced into silence and could not answer.”

>The head monk said, “Don’t say that he was silent. It is only that you didn’t understand.”

>The master struck him [with a stick] and said, “Actually, this blow should have been given to that old fool Nan-ch’uan himself.”

Green says bright and dark mean "Sameness" and "differentiation" and that here Joshu is asking if Nansen will say something about it.

If we agree that's true, this is what I see here:

Joshu goes out to test his master with some Zen rhetoric.

Nansen goes back to his room, it doesn't explain why. You're left to fill in the blanks.

Joshu then baits out anyone else by saying Nansen showed fault.

The head monk fills in the blank with something that didn't actually happen. Trying to rescue his honor or reverence or whatever.

Joshu hits him to relieve him of such thoughts, and then tries to bait someone else into doing what the head monk did.

>The master asked Nan-ch’uan (Nansen),' “What is the Way?”

>Nan-ch’uan said, “Ordinary mind is the Way.”

>The master said, “Then may I direct myself towards it or not?”

>Nan-ch’uan said, “To seek [it] is to deviate [from it].”

>The master said, “If I do not seek, how can I know about the Way?”

>Nan-chu’an said, “The Way does not belong to knowing or not knowing. To know is to have a concept; to not know is to be ignorant. If you truly realize the Way of no doubt, it is just like the sky: wide open vast emptiness. How can you say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to it?”

>At these words the master had sudden enlightenment.

>His mind became like the clear moon.

If ordinary mind is the way, and I can't direct myself towards it and I can't know, or nor know about it. I can't make a concept about it, but I also can't be ignorant.

What can you even do?

When I realize the "Way of no doubt" (what are other translations of this?) I will notice it's just like the sky, wide open vast emptiness. OK, sure.

It seems like this is talking about awareness. Not having an internal monologue about things, just seeing them as they are? Isn't there a medical condition for something like that?

It makes it very difficult to do much of anything. How does a Zen student realize the "Way of no doubt?" Just read books and chat on reddit?