Shuzan held out his short
staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If
you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish
to call this?"
(Koan)
First reaction
What do you call it?
Exploration
Substitute the words 'short staff' for 'shoe' and it may make more
sense to you.
If you call a shoe a shoe then that is incorrect. The word is not the thing.
The shoe can only be understood through its application. Through doing. Through
wearing it.
Wearing a shoe illustrates an understanding of its essence, its function.
Yet, if we do not call it 'shoe' what do we call it?
Assuming that we wish to communicate, we associate words to things, and we
express the concept.
When I say 'shoe' you know what I am referring to.
Unless you do not speak English.
Ultimately, every modern person would understand the utility of a shoe but not
necessarily use the same word for shoe.
They would comprehend the physical object but not necessarily the word.
Do you speak English? Or do you use a different word to suggest this object,
this concept?
The problem with the word is that although it expresses the concept, is it
accurately expressing reality?
Do we all see the same shoe?
The same shoe as you?
Possible meaning
Words are not things. They merely indicate objects.
The nature of an object cannot be expressed verbally. Understanding is not
verbal. It is experiential.
Words serve to communicate ideas, and as such are a necessary tool.
However, it is important to keep words in perspective.
A word points at something, but that is all. If we want to comprehend reality,
we cannot do so verbally.