Editing Openai/6913bc28-779c-8001-ac46-e9542d91fa75 (section)

=== Assistant: Excellent — you’re asking the right question, because yes, both of these versions hinge on wordplay that is much denser… ===
Excellent — you’re asking the right question, because yes, both of these versions hinge on wordplay that is much denser than the English can carry. Let’s unpack the linguistic and Chan-style resonance in each pair.

==== 1️⃣ 貧子 (pín zǐ) — “poor man” ====
* On the surface: “a poor person.”
* In Chan idiom, 貧 doesn’t mean economic poverty; it’s shorthand for spiritual “emptiness” or “lack of possession.” - E.g., “貧僧” (“poor monk”) is a conventional humble self-reference. - “貧子” can thus imply “the one who claims to have nothing,” or “the one who has emptied himself.”
* There’s a paradox: the truly “poor” (in ego, in concepts) is actually “not lacking” — an inversion at the heart of both sayings.

So when the monk says “貧子來” (“a poor man has come”), Zhaozhou hears not a social situation but a spiritual pose: someone coming as if destitute or empty-handed, seeking “something.”

==== 2️⃣ Comparing the question forms ====

===== (1) 「將什麼物與他」 =====

: “What thing will you give him?”
* 物 (wù) = “thing,” “object,” or even “phenomenon.”
* Asking “what thing” invites the idea of substantial transmission — as if Dharma were an object that can be handed over.
* Zhaozhou’s reply “不欠少” denies the premise: nothing is missing to begin with.

→ Philosophically, this negates object-duality (giver–gift–receiver).

===== (2) 「將什麼過與」 =====

: “What will you pass over to him?”
* 過與 (guò yǔ) literally means “to pass across and give.” - The word 過 also means to cross over, to transcend, to surpass, and even a fault or mistake in other contexts.
* So “將什麼過與” can carry multiple resonances: 1. “What will you hand across to him?” 2. “What transcendence will you grant him?” 3. “What ‘fault’ (過) will you share with him?” — a humorous pun in some commentarial readings.
* The choice of 過 softens “物” (thing), turning the question more toward relationship or movement than object.

Zhaozhou’s answer “不貧” thus shifts focus from object to subject: the so-called poor man is not poor; there’s nothing to hand over or cross.

==== 3️⃣ Comparing the answers ====

===== (1) 不欠少 (bù qiàn shǎo) =====

: literally “not owing or lacking.”
* 欠 means “to owe” or “to be short of”; 少 means “few, lacking.”
* The compound strengthens the negation: “not in debt, not deficient.”
* The tone is objective sufficiency: nothing missing, no debt to be paid.
* It’s also idiomatic — “不欠少” can mean “completely sufficient,” “perfectly fine,” “nothing short.”

So, it expresses fullness in emptiness — the Chan idea that the mind already lacks nothing.

===== (2) 不貧 (bù pín) and 只是守貧 (zhǐ shì shǒu pín) =====

: “Not poor” … “only clinging to poverty.”
* 不貧 = “not poor,” plain but absolute — existentially complete.
* When pressed (“Then why does he seek the Master?”), Zhaozhou flips the key word into 守貧 (“guarding/keeping poverty”). - 守 implies holding, keeping, maintaining — i.e., attachment. - The supposed “poor man” guards his idea of poverty — he is attached even to his emptiness.

→ This introduces a second layer of wordplay:
being “not poor” ≠ having possessions, but freedom from the self-image of lack.
“Guarding poverty” = turning emptiness itself into another possession.

==== 4️⃣ Semantic and Chan contrasts ====

| Theme       | Case (1) — 物 / 不欠少                      | Case (2) — 過 / 不貧 … 守貧                                                   |
| ----------- | --------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
| Focus       | The object of giving                    | The subject who receives                                                 |
| Verb nuance | 將…物與 = to give a thing                  | 將…過與 = to pass something over / to transcend                             |
| Reply tone  | Ontological fullness: “nothing lacking” | Psychological diagnosis: “not poor, but clinging to the idea of poverty” |
| Paradox     | The “poor” already has all              | The “not-poor” still plays at being poor                                 |
| Wordplay    | 欠 (owe) ↔ 貧 (poor) — two faces of lack  | 過 (cross / fault) ↔ 守 (keep) — movement vs fixation                      |

===== 🪶 In short =====
* 貧 / 欠 / 少 / 守 / 過 all orbit around lack and possession but invert them through tone and context.
* Zhaozhou’s replies dismantle each layer: 1. There is no object to give — because nothing is lacking. 2. There is no poverty to fix — unless you cling to the notion of being poor.

This web of puns and reversals is exactly what gives these two short lines their remarkable depth in Chinese, far richer than the flat “poor / not lacking” contrast in English.