Because it is so important to understanding hokku, here is a repeat of an earlier posting:
I have never been an admirer of Confucius, yet one can say of the teaching of hokku what Confucius said:
“The Master said, “Do you think, my disciples, that I have any concealments? I conceal nothing from you. There is nothing which I do that is not shown to you, my disciples; that is my way.” (Analects 7:23)
That does not mean a teacher demands nothing of the student:
“The Master said, “I do not open up the truth to one who is not eager to get knowledge, nor help out any one who is not anxious to explain himself. When I have presented one corner of a subject to any one, and he cannot from it learn the other three, I do not repeat my lesson.” (Analects 7:8)
Well, unlike Confucius, I present one corner of the subject, and when the student cannot produce the other three from his or her own resources, I explain even further, and I repeat the lesson over and over, because it is initially very difficult for Westerners to grasp how completely different hokku is from what they are accustomed to think of as poetry. Those in modern haiku, for example, have never understood the difference, which is why haiku has devolved into just another kind of short-form modern verse in the West, becoming simply free verse divided into three lines.
One could say that the method of learning hokku is in these words:
“The Master said, “Yu, shall I teach you what knowledge is? When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it;— this is knowledge.” (Analects 2:17)
We can say clearly and plainly, as did R. H. Blyth, what hokku is. It is not a poem, it is not literature. Instead, “it is a way of returning to our moon nature, our cherry blossom nature, our falling leaf nature, in short, to our Buddha nature.”
Here Blyth, like Confucius, clearly shows us one corner, and we are to supply the other three. But Blyth demanded a great deal of Western readers, and for the most part they failed him, unable to supply the other three corners — and the result was modern haiku.
Quite simply and clearly, what Blyth meant was that hokku is nothing like what we think of when we think of poetry. To even call it “poetry” is to mislead, because it obscures and distorts hokku with mistaken presuppositions.
We are accustomed to making a distinction between inner and outer, between the thing seen “out there” in the world and the thoughts about the thing in the mind. But in hokku the thing out there is the thing in the mind, if we only let the mind reflect it like a bright mirror, not obscuring it with all our thoughts and commentaries.
A clear and flawless mirror reflects without adding anything. The mind that is obscured with thoughts will reflect the thing clothed and distorted by those thoughts, remaking the thing “in our own image.” So in hokku it is vitally important to distinguish between what we see in Nature and our thoughts and ideas about what we see in Nature.
That is why Blyth tells us that we must not obscure the truth and suchness of a thing with words and thoughts. “Things must speak to us so loudly that we cannot hear what the poets have said about them.”
That is the great distinction between hokku and modern haiku. Modern haiku has become inseparably attached to “what the poets [meaning the writers of modern haiku themselves] have said about them.” In haiku (in contrast to hokku), the “poet” is the most important thing, which is why those in haiku are so remarkably attached to the individual’s whim in writing, the inviolable sanctity of the will of the POET, which one is tempted to write in grand Gothic Blackletter type.
In hokku, by contrast, there are no poets. The writer is simply the mirror that reflects Nature. It is the job of the writer to keep the mirror wiped clean of the dust of thought and self-will. The writer of hokku does not block the speaking of Nature with his or her own voice. Instead, one simply lets Nature speak through the writer.
This is not some kind of verbal hocus-pocus or spacey, New-Age nonsense. It is exactly how hokku works.
When we read the words of Mokudō,
The spring wind;
A sound of water running
Through the barley.
–where is the writer? Where is the reader? Both have disappeared. There is only the spring wind, only the sound of water running through the barley field. The truth is revealed for all to see, as Blyth says:
“Each thing is preaching the Law incessantly, but this Law is not something different from the thing itself.”
Quite simply, hokku “is the revealing of this preaching by presenting us with the thing devoid of all our mental twisting and emotional coloration…”
That is precisely what Mokudō does. He presents us with the thing (the spring wind, the sound of water running through the barley) “devoid of all our mental twisting and emotional coloration.”
There is no poet Mokudō. There is only the thing simultaneously both outside and inside the mind, the bright mirror mind that reflects without adding or distorting.
Modern haiku has never understood this because it is too attached to being a “poet” and to “writing poetry.” But hokku, as Blyth told us plainly and truly, is not poetry; it is not literature. Instead, it is “the result of the wish, the effort, not to speak, not to write poetry, not to obscure the truth and suchness of a thing with words, with thoughts and feelings.”
In this lies the great difference between hokku and modern haiku. In hokku we do not even use the term “poet” in talking about ourselves and we do not use the word “poem” to describe hokku. Hokku is simply the writer getting “himself” out of the way so that Nature may speak. When we add our own thoughts and commentary, we drown out the voice of Nature. That is why in hokku we just present the thing as it is, unobscured by our thoughts.
Hokku, then, is a remarkably humble form of verse. We do not take on the pride of being “poets” and writing “poetry.” When we write “poetry,” the writer as “POET” stands in the way of the thing. In hokku the writer disappears so that the thing is revealed just as it is, with nothing obscuring it.
It is very important to understand these things, because without such understanding one simply will be unable to read or to write hokku.