I'm sure you've seen programming koans more than once. But for the longest time I couldn't understand what is really meant when people talk about the answer not being significant, but how you arrive at it. But sitting on the toilet today, and pondering the ``Does a dog have Buddha nature?'', it finally clicked.
The Dog is very important to this. To see why, let's modify this koan a little:
``Does The Sussman have Buddha nature?''
This is bad, for a simple reason. When you read this, you will be naturally inclined to ponder nature of The Sussman himself, not that of Buddha. The Sussman gives you an out to not really reflect on the Buddha himself, but instead trying to find qualities in The Sussman that match your vague understanding of what Buddha is.
But when we ask ``Does a dog have Buddha nature?'' we do not have that crutch anymore. If you start reasoning about a Dog, you will soon come short, because a Dog does not match the greatness of The Sussman, or Buddha. Therefore you will be pushed to think of what ``Buddha nature'' is instead. As you reflect on that, you will come to understand Buddha, and the principles he embodies on a deeper level. That is the point of this koan. It does not matter if Dog has a Buddha nature, the point is to make you consider what would be Buddha nature. This is what people mean when they say the answer to a koan does not matter.
Koans are not meant to be explained, it's like explaining the joke, ruining it forever. Thank you.
The venerable master Tank Yuu was walking with his student, Ou Pi. Hoping to prompt the master into a discussion, Ou Pi said:
"Master, I now understand what the koans are about."
After hearing Ou Pi's explanation, Tank Yuu turned to him and with a blank face said:
"Knock, knock."
"Who's there?" - asked Ou Pi.
...
...
...
At that moment, Ou Pi became enlightened.
A novice of the temple once approached the Master Programmer with a question: “Master, does Emacs have the Buddha nature?” the novice asked.
The Master Programmer had been in the temple for many years and could be relied upon to know these things. He thought for several minutes before replying: “I don’t see why not. It’s bloody well got everything else.”
>>4
A program cannot have consciousness since is not digital-discrete,
perhaps analog-quantum substrates would be closer to biological experience of sentience, but a sequence of serial opcodes cannot.
>>5
Tell that to my M-x doctor.
Emacs? Hah! I would appreciate it if you would continue.
Koans are given to you personally by your teacher. You can't just pick up someone else's koan and think it will do you any good.
The Buddha did not teach Buddha nature. He did not teach with koans. He instead spoke so that he would be understood.
FWIW. The dog in your story will die one day and might then (depending on its kamma) be reborn as a human or into a higher realm and will then be able to achieve nibbana. While it is still a dog it will not be able to practice the Noble Eightfold Path and will not become an Arahant.
Learn more at https://suttacentral.net/
(With metta)
Bunch of crazy nonsense. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Lisp is God's Programming Language. It is simple. It has no need for "koans".
Only complex and imperfect human-made programming languages such as Java and C++ have a need for "koans".
The venerable master Qc Na was walking with his student, Anton. Hoping to prompt the master into a discussion, Anton said "Master, I have heard that objects are a very good thing - is this true?" Qc Na looked pityingly at his student and replied, "Foolish pupil - objects are merely a poor man's closures."
Chastised, Anton took his leave from his master and returned to his cell, intent on studying closures. He carefully read the entire "Lambda: The Ultimate..." series of papers and its cousins, and implemented a small Scheme interpreter with a closure-based object system. He learned much, and looked forward to informing his master of his progress.
On his next walk with Qc Na, Anton attempted to impress his master by saying "Master, I have diligently studied the matter, and now understand that objects are truly a poor man's closures." Qc Na responded by hitting Anton with his stick, saying "When will you learn? Closures are a poor man's object." At that moment, Anton became enlightened.