Ko’an: Chicken or Egg?

In Zen Buddhism we are sometimes presented with an odd proposition called a ko’an. Its literal translation is ‘public plan’, but that tells us little of what it is. The dictionary describes it as a “riddle used in Zen to teach inadequacy of logical reasoning”. In Buddhism they often talk of satori, the moment of sudden enlightenment. Yet there are other forms of knowledge. Samsara is the cycle of birth, death and rebirth; and samsara knowledge is that knowledge which we attain through that very process of moving through the cycles, in other words what is not learned through formalised education.

The ko’an serves not only to highlight the limitations of using reasoning and rationality as the only source of knowledge, but also simply to get us into the habit of thinking for its own sake. We all know the famous question, “If there is no one in the forest to hear it, does a tree make a sound when it falls?” The task is not to find an answer; the task is merely to feel comfortable with the process of thinking. A solution is nice, but it is not the focus. Similarly we have heard, “We know what is the sound of two hands clapping, but what is the sound of one hand clapping?” Again, we are asked simply to think for its own sake.

The 1960s British singer Donovan (Leitch) released a song, whose lyrics started “First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.” The Buddhist encourages us first to see something as it appears – a mountain. It is what we recognise, but is it what it really is? To understand this thing called a ‘mountain’, we must strip away the appearance. For some this means to look at the thing which replaces it, called the ‘non-mountain’. For others it is to see the mountain as only a temporal space-filler (yes, even mountains are temporary), whose nature can not be deemed to be certain. For yet others the mountain can not be seen as anything more than a collection of components, of dirt and rocks and soil and trees and even angles and temperatures. It is no different than an electrician seeing a television not as a single item, but as a collection of all that makes it up. The third part of the Donovan lyric goes “then there is”. By seeing and then not seeing, by identifying, deconstructing and then reconstructing, we come to a fuller understanding of the thing itself. Suddenly ‘the mountain’ (or the television) exists! In European psychoanalysis we come to the Gestalt, the ‘form’ which is greater than the sum total of its parts. The mountain exists not only because of all that it is, but also because of all that it is not.

In our English culture we had our own little ko’an in the form of the question, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” We do not see this as a ko’an, because by now this question has slipped into the realm of a cultural adage, as a statement of meaning rather than as a Zen question. That meaning is, of course: ‘In some cyclical propositions we can not determine the origin of the cycle.’ Indeed, it has even reached the level of social ridicule as we repeat the absurdity: What laid the egg? A chicken! But where did the chicken come from? An egg! And so on! However, by rejecting its use as an adage, we can not only return it to the function of a ko’an, we can indeed find an answer to this age-old question! And I have done precisely that!

If we subscribe to the notion of evolution, as all rationally minded people do (even granted that evolution has a few ‘rough spots’), we are aware that all animal life evolved from something beforehand. With humans we had Neanderthals and Australopithecus and the like. With the horse we found the mesohippus, the pleiohippus and the eohippus. They all had some earlier version. Thus it also was with the humble chicken: it has not remained the same since the dawn of life! Now, I do not know what the predecessor of gallus domesticus was called, so let us for the sake of this thesis call it protogallus.

The way that any species evolves is that a particular genetic combination will produce a genetic variation which makes the offspring identifiably different from either or both of the parents. At one very precise point one segment of the species stops and another one starts. But because it is a genetic variation, it must occur in the fusion of the two parental contributions. And where does that fusion take place? It takes place in ovo, in the egg! The egg came first!

To the cyclically absurd question, ‘What laid the egg,’ we are now able to say, “Well, it was something, but it was certainly not a chicken. It was protogallus, the predecessor.”

The ko’an is not simply a time-waster. To keep the mind alive and vibrant, it is sometimes necessary to think outside of the box. Indeed, the field of quantum science owes its existence to people who found linear mental activity to be debilitating. We have the opportunity to turn almost anything into a mental exercise. In the famous British television series The Prisoner, the hero crashed the computer which ran everything by asking the basic question, “Why?” And yet the answer can be found: it is “Because!” But to find that, we just need to think a little bit differently. You might take a simple, almost naive question like, ‘Do my shoes fit,’ and turn that into a ko’an. We focus on the existence of the shoes, on the meaning of ‘to fit’, on the nature of possession inherent in the word ‘my’, on the relationship between objects and expectations.

If we believe that the spirit has no bounds, time has come for us to hold the same belief about the mind. Ancient Buddhism finds a new place in a modern world… as if it ever left it!

  1. Claire Gunn
    15/02/2013 at 5:04 am

    As we see that things are dependent on the condition of continual change, we see that there is a permanent state of impermanence, an appearance of the process of arising and cessation, emergence and decay, cause and result of composite phenomena. Things do not come from somewhere and they do not go anywhere, in this way there is no first cause or final result. Just the appearance of things in a moment of time when we observe it and designate a definition to it, but in fact all experience is a continuum of changing moments of dependently appearing phenomena. If the chicken came first, it would have arisen without the cause of egg and therefore would have to have arisen without a cause at all and be independent phenomena that would always have existed. This is the same with the egg; it would not have had the cause of chicken to have arisen from and so would have to have been ever present and unchanging as the egg. If they arose simultaneously, they would not have time to be each other’s cause and result. They would exist independently with no causal relationship. Therefore we can say that the condition of the appearance of chicken and egg, as well as the concept of linear classification or time, is merely a snapshot of a moment of observation of a continually changing set of conditions or happenings that only appears as one thing, but actually has no core continuous substance to it. We confuse individual entities in a continuum for one thing. Therefore no real moment of chicken and no real moment of egg in order to assert which came first, neither came first. In fact the chicken, as well as the egg is a collection. Where is the chicken to point to as a cause? It is only a collection of its many parts that make the appearance of its physical body, and it is dependent on our perception of it to appear. Therefore no real chicken exists, only the appearance of the composite phenomena that make up what we can refer to as chicken. It is the same for egg, and every other phenomenon that appears. Their true nature is appearance –emptiness inseparable and transcends conceptual fabrications

    • 16/02/2013 at 1:36 pm

      This comment from Claire is confusing. First she says that everything is in a state of change, and then she immediately says, as an apparently logical sequitur, that THEREFORE “things do not come from somewhere and they do not go anywhere.” This would DENY change. She misses the point that if a chicken came from an egg, the egg does not have to have come from a chicken ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION OF WHAT A CHICKEN IS. I may have a box full of knobs and wires and diodes and capacitors and tubes, but it is not a television set until it reaches a particular point of cohesion whereby the DEFINITION of a television SET becomes valid. She also talks about “no real moment of chicken and no real moment of egg” when she has just talked about “a snapshot of a moment”. Her most valid point is when she says “no real chicken exists, only the appearance of the composite phenomena that make up what we can refer to as chicken,” as long as we ignore the “therefore” which starts the line, since it was not proven as a logical equation. The reference is presumed: “What came first, what we refer to as a chicken or what we refer to as an egg?” My argument about genetic combination still has not been disabused.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: