、 Zen Zen Classics

R.H.BLYTH

、 ZEN AND ZEN CLASSICS

Volume Two

History of Zen

THE HOKUSEIDO PRESS TOKYO HEIAN INTERNATIONAL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO

ZEN AND ZEN CLASSICS Volume Two Two Moons, by Sengai

& 推甘W ;二〇出T 來石秋o 月 Moon of autumn; Press the eyes, And two appear!

Two naked children are rejoicing in the moon, raising their arms, but a third, with a belly-band, is pressing both eyes. He wilfully distorts the natural truth of things, their Buddha-nature, their oneness, and creates the world of duality and dichotomy.

ZEN AND ZEN CLASSICS

Five Volumes

Vol. I General Introduction, From the Upanishads to Huineng Vol. II History o f Zen (Seigen Branch) Vol. Ill History of Zen, c o n fd (Nangaku Branch)

Vol. IV M u m o n k a n Vol. V Twenty-Five Zen Essays (Christianity, Sex, Society, etc.) R. H. BLTTH ZEN AND ZEN CLASSICS

Volume Two

History of Zen

THE HOKUSEIDO PRESS TOKYO HEIAN INTERNATIONAL SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO © 1964, by R. H. Blyth

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

First Printing, 1964 Sixth Printing, 1 9 8 2

ISBN 0-89346-205-5

Published by The Hokuseido Press 3-12, Kanda-Nishl]dclio, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo

Heian International, Inc. P. O. Box 2402, South San Francisco, CA 94080 D edicated

to

S u z u k i D a ise t z

W ho c an read

W h a t I c a n ’t w r it e

PREFACE

This volume purports to be the History of Zen from Eno to Ummon, that is, of the Seigen branch of the double-forked tree of Zen, but what the reader actually gets is something better, a selection of the anecdotes concerning this line of patriarchs. It was from such stories that the Hehiganroku, Mumonkan, and S h o y d - ro k u were composed. These three works, as in the case of a selection of the best poems of the best poets, give us a somewhat partial and excessively lofty view of Chinese Zen geniuses. From the failures, and uncertain­ ties of great men we can get to know not only more of their whole character, but more of the nature of music or art or literature or life or Zen. To understand the world, we must go beyond it. To understand the Zen of the Chinese masters, we must transcend them, and it. This disrespect, this non-attachment to great­ ness, is very Zen, and what makes it unique. 4Buddhism, that is, of human nature. The masters, we must admit, some­ times have too strong a desire to win, in other words, to teach. This again, as Mencius says, is the great fault of human beings. However, when we take all the anec­ dotes, not only those selected in the three great Zen books, we find the masters sometimes defeated, and viii Preface nearly always willing to be so if only their pupils learn something. As said before, the Hekiganroku and so on give us a rather false view of the Zen masters, and un­ fortunate in so far as they appear to be always right and the monks always wrong, or worse still, just dumb, in both senses of the word. We get the same feeling from the Gospels, and it is worth noting that what makes us respect and indeed love Christ more than any­ thing else is his reproving one who called him good, and telling us, “There is none good, but the Garbhadhatu.” It is usually said that k6an, m ond5,公案，問答， are incomprehensible. They are no more, and no less under­ standable than the poetry of Wordsworth, the music of Bach, the paintings of Klee. And suddenly to say, as almost all the commentators do, when they get into difficulties with the explanation, that you must do zazen in order to grasp the meaning, is not untrue, but if so, why make any explanation at all, since the essence escapes anyway? What distinguishes Ummon, for in­ stance, from Shakespeare and Mozart and Giotto, is the fact that every man has, or is supposed to have the Buddha nature, but not everyone has and not everyone is imagined to have, the poetical nature, the musical nature, the artistic nature. We are often told of a Zen master that he had for example a thousand disciples and of them twenty eight were enlightened. We may suppose that the remaining nine hundred and seventy two were lazy or stupid, but we may also suppose that they, or at least some of them, had no Buddha nature at all, just as some people, say about ninety eight per­ cent of the worlds population, have no musical nature at all. Enlightenment, seeing into one’s nature,見性， is one word, but human beings are infinitely various, and this man’s enlightenment is not the same as that man’s, though there may and must also be similarities. If we ask what the characteristics of a Christian are, we shall receive an answer from the proper quarters, but when we use these criteria in judging particular cases we shall often find it difficult to say, “This man Preface ix As, or, is not, a Christian，’’ in the profoundest meaning of the word. But, it may be urged, if Zen is the essence of all religion, including Christianity, and even Buddhism, and if it is moreover the essence of all art, poetry, music, and deep life, how can we make these distinctions? How is it possible that a man should be enlightened, and yet be unpoetical, unmusical, inartistic? It will be noted that we have omitted ‘immoral’. This sug­ gests that Zen, in the customary meaning of the word, that is, as the Chinese Zen masters would have used it, is after all moralistic, or that human beings are so, rather than musical, poetical, and artistic. The object of (Chinese) Zen is to transcend life and death, and, really to live. To die, to rot, and live until we do,—>how to per­ form this in the best possible way is the great problem of life. Zen solves it, not exactly moralistically, but by dying first, and then living. To do this requires moral force and stamina. An understanding of litera­ ture, good taste in art and music, even humour, have little to do with it, that is to say, with dying. But living, after we are once dead, really means being artistic, delighting in natural forms, entering into the nature of things through music. Thus, theoretically speaking, Chinese Zen was a preparation for life by dying, that is, by giving up our natural greediness, selfishness, ambi­ tion, liking-or-loathing. Theoretically speaking, Japa­ nese Zen was the application of Zen to living, to daily life, not the monkish discipline. The Chinese Zen master’s question was, “Can you die and drink a cup of tea?” The Japanese was rather, “Can you die and drink a cup of tea?" In Zen this double activity is known as “the sword that kills, and the sword that makes alive,” 殺人刀活人劍. What is, or shall be, European Zen? It is the further vivification, yet another resurrection. Christ said, “Ye must be born again,” but we may add, “Again and again.” To be born is to be given a body. To be born again is to make new use of that body, that is, to see X Preface into the life of things, see things, not see behind them. And every real seeing of another thing means a for­ getting of one’s self, the death of one’s own thingness. The Chinese (and Japanese) Zen monks never gave up their manhood, their sex, in order to see into the life of women. The anecdotes of the present volume are of men, for men. But a man is only a man when he looks upon, not mountains only, but women also, “With a loving eye.” A loving eye is a new-born eye, an eye that has died to its own pleasure merely. These three stages, Chinese, Japanese, European, in the history of Zen are, as said before, theoretical. In Chinese painting of the Tang and Sung dynasties we can see the application of Zen to art, or shall we not rather say of art to Zen? Christianity has always had its death and resurrection. What is lacking is the mediaeval idea of magnanimity, “great-souledness,” the ideal man towards whom we must consciously strive and from whom a good society is unconsciously created. As in the old mystery religions, every man is to die and be born again, but he must die in his own special way, and live in his own special way, for imitation, conformity, conventionality, is annihilation absolute. CONTENTS

Page PREFACE vii Chapter I THE FIVE SECTS GOZU ZEN AND RoAN ZEN 9 ENo AND HIS DISCIPLES (Jinshu — Kutta Sanzo — Genkaku — Kataku 一 Seigen — Nangaku — S e k ito )...... 15 SEKITO’S DISCIPLES I (Tanka — Daiten — Choshi — Sekishitsu)...... 22 SEKIT6，S DISCIPLES II (Tenno — Ryotan — Tokusan — Ganto — Razan — Meisho —^ u ig a n )...... 29 VI 39 seppg . X " 3 ...... VII SEPP^S DISCIPLES I (Gensha — Rakan — Ankoku — Taigen)...... 50 VIII SEPP6，S DISCIPLES II (Chokei — Kyosei — Hofuku)...... 57 HoGEN 66 HOGEN^ DISCIPLES ...... 75 XI YAKUSAN TO SEKISo (Ungan — Dogo). 79 XII SENSU, KASSAN, SH6ZAN ...... 86 XIII ToZAN ...... 92 XIV S6ZAN AND UNGO 104 XV UMMON I ...... 114 XVI UMMON II ...... 125 XVII UMMON III ...... 137 Chapter XVIII THE SANDOKAI ...... 146 XIX THE HOKY6ZAMMAI ...... 151 XX THE POEMS OF HANSHAN I ...... 159 XXI THE POEMS OF HANSHANII ...... 166 XXII ZEN, MYSTICISM, EXISTENTIALISM . 172 XXIII WAYS, AND THE W A Y ...... 186 XXIV NATURE, HUMAN NATURE, THE BUDDHA NATURE, THE POETIC NATURE ...... 190 XXV DEFECTS OF ZEN ...... 194 EPILOGUE ...... 201 INDEX ...... 205

List of Illustrations

Two Moons, by Sengai...... Frontispiece Tokusan and Rinzai, by Sengai ...... 29〜 30

Chrysanthemums, by Sengai...... 119~120

Kanzan and Jittoku, by Sengai ...... 161〜 162 Chapter I

THE FIVE SECTS

The history of Zen is the history of moments. It cannot be, like the history of ideas, or even the history of the freedom of thought, an account of development, systematisation, criticism, modification, replacement, anu so forth. Zen seems to become deeper sometimes, shal­ lower, broader, narrower sometimes, but there is no progress of the ordinary kind. It is a history only in the sense of being a list of names of great men in the attainment of greatness in words or deeds or manner of life. I find no Zen in Buddha, and in Buddhism itself up to Daruma it is the Hinduism, the animism and panthe­ ism of the U p a n ish a d s that keeps the universe alive, so that the Chinese Zen masters, with the help of early Taoism, are able to

kiss the joy as it flies, And live in Eternity’s sunrise. Zen as zazen begins with Daruma, 6th century. Zen as a “philosophy of living” begins with En6, 7th century. End’s Zen is not Indian, but neither is it Chinese. It is rather super-national, almost superhuman, though not supernatural. Eno reminds us a little of Hakurakuten; like him he would have been at home in Athens, Rome, Paris, or London. Zen as we now think of it, Chinese Zen, commences with Baso and his “wild and whirling words” and “pleasure in being mad,” 奇言畸行. It attains its highest with Joshu, 9th century, and Ummon 10th century. (The Zen sect, in the sense of an organi­ sation of monks with the purpose of gaining enlighten­ 2 The Five Sects ment, begins with Hyakujo, (720-814). It had its swan­ song sung in the 11th century Hekiganroku and the 13th century M u m o n k a n . From the 4th Patriarch branched off Gozu Zen, and from the 5th Roan Zen. Gozu Zen showed the tendency towards strange be­ haviour which was to be a characteristic of Baso and his school. Eccentrics were attracted by the absolute liberty promised by Zen, and those who thus became free could not but be oddities. Roan Zen also was characterised by wit and humour. Its adherents avoid­ ed imperial patronage, not unknown later. There were no doubt able and brilliant monks among them, but both Roan and Gozu Zen did not last long enough to bring them fame. The 6th Patriarch had many disciples, of whom five were the most important, Seigen and Nangaku; Kataku, Nany6 and Y6ka, “the Five Great Masters of the Sect,” 五大宗匠. Kataku Zen came to an end in 841, with the death of the 5th successor, Keiho. Kataku was for long with the 6th Patriarch, and Kataku Zen does not seem to have differed much from that of Eno. Yoka is known for his S h d d o ka 1 and for his nick- name “One-night’s-lodging Kaku,” 一宿覚， as he was asked by the 6th Patriarch to stay a night with him. Their Zen is very similar. Nanyo, who is said not to have left the valley of Nanyo for forty years, had a great number of disciples, but nothing seems to be known clearly about their Zen. Like Kataku Zen, it came to an end in the middle of the Tang dynasty, and we must presume that it did not go much beyond Eno^ Zen. It is from Seigen and Nangaku that all the great Zen masters derive; from Seigen the Ummon, Hogen, and S〇t?u Sf] ? 〇lS9 and Nan^aku the Igy〇 and Rinzai, so that the present Rmzai and Soto schools come from

1. Translated In Vol. I. The Five Ranks 3 the two chief disciples of Eno.

Eno

Seigen Nangaku

Tozan Rinzai

From Nangaku, it is Baso, Hyakujo, obaku, Rinzai; and from Seigen, it is Sekito, Yakusan, Ungan, Tozan. To- zan’s pupil, S6zan,曹山，840-901， probably provided the first syllable of Soto, which is thus a combination of Sozan and Tosan; but another explanation is that the S6 comes from S6kei,曹 溪 ， the name of End’s temple. It is not impossible that both accounts are correct. The Zen of Seigen aiid Nangaku seems to have been like that of Eno, only more so. Seigen’s disciple Sekit6 wrote the Sandokai, which appears to me not only non- Zen, but anti-Zen in its resolution of Manichaeism into a super-theos called Spiritual Origin,霊原• This develop­ ed into the idea of Five Ranks, Goi， 五位， established by Tozan, which afterwards turned into fortune-telling and superstition like the later Taoism, and was con­ demned by Dogen, but then restored to favour. Tozan's Ifdfcydzammai,宝鏡三昧2, presages the Five Ranks, which are explained as follows.

⑴ 正 中 偏 ： The Absolute becomes the Relative; God becomes man. (2) 偏 中 正 ： The Relative becomes the Absolute; man becomes God. (3) 正 中 来 •• The Absolute alone; God is God. (4) 偏 丰 室 ： The Relative alone; man is man. (5) 襄 到 ： The Absolute as Relative, the Relative as Absolute; no God, no man. All this seems to me unpoetical, unpractical, devoid

2. See page 152 for a translation. 4 The Five Sects of Zen, ununderstandable by the intuition. There is no doubt a kind of intellectual enlightenment in it, but it is entirely detached from the senses, partaking thus of the nature of symbols, in this case the least dangerous, but also the least interesting, abstract symbols. Z en too, like everything else human, has had and still has the tendency to fall into intellection and abstrac­ tion. It is from the other branch of Zen, beginning with Nangaku, who himself is not brilliant, that Zen makes its new development, to be precise, from Nangaku’s disciple Baso onwards. Baso himself had two great disciples, Nansen and Hyakujo.

Kangaku

Baso

Nansen Hyakujo

Nansen’s disciple Joshu and Hyakujo^ disciple Obaku and h is disciple Rinzai complete the list of the greatest Zen masters, and thus we get this (simplified) genealogy:

Eno

Seigen Nan^gaku

dt5 Baso / kusan Nansen Hyakujo

Ummon Joshu Oblku Rinzai Ummon belong to the Seigen, Sekito, Seppo line. Go-

/Yal The Five Sects 5 ing back to the Seigen branch, Seigen himself added nothing to End’s Zen, but Sekit6 has humour and wit, and ability to enlighten disciples in a practical way. Sekito had two chief disciples, Tenno (Tienhuang) 748- 807, and Yakusan, (Yuehshan) 751-834.

Seigen J Sekito __ |______Tenn5 Yakusan

Tenno^ chief disciple was Ryutan. With Ryutan be­ gins the idea of teaching by just not teaching, which is a development of Daruma’s declaration that he did not know what Zen was. But the famous blowing out of the candle by Ryutan, enlightening his disciple Tokusan by the darkness,—this is orthodox Zen, that is, monkish Zen, at its best. Compare Stevenson’s poem:

The breeze from the embalmed land Blows sudden toward the shore; And claps my cottage door. I hear the signal, Lord—I understand. The night at thy command Comes. I will eat and sleep and will not question more.

After his enlightenment by having the fire put out, Tokusan made a bonfire of his sutras. There is no ac­ count of any Christian being converted into burning the Bible. The only Bible that Christians have burnt is other people’s. Nirvana is the “blowing out” of the candle of life. Baptism is the Christian equivalent, but baptism is a prelude to resurrection, and there is no resurrection in Nirvana. So in Daruma’s wall-gazing, nothing se谷ms to have come of it. Even En6’s enlighten­ ment was an end in itself, but Tokusan and his own 6 The Five Sects disciples, Ganto and Seppo have a liveliness which shows that Zen was not nihilism. It had nothing to do with the pessimism and escapism which drove so many into Buddhism, but was an escape from this very escapism. The anecdotes concerning Ganto and Seppo especially are Zen at its most simple and most profound, so that we are unable to distinguish their Zen from their activity in field, forest, or temple. Human history, in the deepest sense, is the perpetual separation and rejoining of things and their meaning, and at the time of Ganto, 828-887, and Seppo, 822-908, the life of these monks, and what it meant cosmically,—no man could divide the two. The Word was made flesh and dwelt in China in the 9th century in these men.

Ryutan I Tokusan

Gantd Sepp5

From the Seigen branch come three of the five Zen Sects, the Soto Sect, the Ummon Sect and the Hogen Sect. Ummon was a disciple of Seppo, and Hogen of Gensha through Rakan (Lohan)羅 漢 . Both the Ummon and the Hogen Schools come through Tokusan, who combined the doctrine of absolute emptiness with the use of his stick, which was not used as an instrument of punishment, but for both praise and blame, since “Whether you manage to speak or whether you manage to be silent, thirty strokes!” 道得也三十棒. 道 不 得 也 三 十 棒 • The other two sects, the Igy6 and the Rinzai, come through Nangaku. The “Five Houses” of Zen,五 家 ，are not easy to dis­ tinguish at this distance of time, but the founders are quite individual and indeed unique. In the same way, Saint Paul and Augustine were both Christians, but different from each other, and still more different from The Five Houses 7

Seigen

SekitS

Yakusan Ryutan

Tokusan Tozan

Seppo i Sozan Ummon Gensha

Rakan

Hogen

(the records of) Christ. Igyo (Weiyang) Zen was fantastic, as opposed to Eno^ common sense, and ques­ tions and answers are both transcendental. However, Isan and Kyozan used actions rather than words, and also employed diagrams, particularly circles, in their teaching. Even levitation is not eschewed, if we may believe the records, and there is here a tendency seen towards magic and superstition. The Igyo Sect was the first to appear, and died out rather quickly. The Rinzai Sect was still more March Hareish, and as violent as the Queen and her “Off with their heads!” However, there is also the Four-fold Subject and Object, 四料簡， Fourfold Host and G uest,四賓主， and the Three Mysteries and Three Essentials，三玄三要. Soto Zen is more understandable, in the sense that the problems may be intellectually grasped, though not intellectually solved, of course. The theory of the Five Ranks, however, referred to before, is so difficult as to be (to me) incomprehensible. ^ The Five Sects Ummon Zen is the most brilliant of all, yet at the same time quite physical in its spirituality. H6gen Zen was a very “kind” Zen, which tried as far as possible to meet the learner-monk half-way. This may have been partly because the Hogen Sect was the last to appear, in the 10th century. The others belong to the 9th, except Ummon, who died in 949, nine years before Hogen. Chapter II

GOZU ZEN AND ROAN ZEN

I Daruma Before describing the division I of the Zen genealogical tree into II Eka the Northern (gradual) School I and the Southern (sudden) School [II S5zan and the flourishing of the latter, we must go back to the 4th IV DSshia Patriarch, Doshin, and also to the 5th Patriarch and two branches which showed much promise and then withered away. Gozu1 (Niu‘to u )牛 頭 ，594-657, a disciple of the 4th Patriarch, practically began a sub-sect of Zen which continued for about a century. iEh5 iii When he was nineteen, he had already gone through the sutras \ I . Hoji iv and especially understood the l Hannya Sutra. He is reported to Chii v have said, “Confucianism is the law of this world; it is not the supreme law. With the true view Kakurin Echu vi of H a n n y a we can make a success I Dokin of our life.” When he lectured on the Great Hannya Sutra at .1 Dorin Kenshoji Temple, the listeners were as numberless as the clouds, and when he got to The Quietness of Extinction Section,滅静品， there was ap earthquake. After becoming a monk he entered Gozu i.

i. There were several Gozu^; this one is the first, Hoyu (F a iu n g )法融• 10 Gozu and Roan Mountain and lived there in a cave, calling it Yuseiji Temple, It is said that all kinds of birds brought flowers to him, and this became a famous koan with more than fifty answers: ^Before Gozu met the 4th Patriarch, birds brought flowers to him; why was this? After he met him, they stopped; why was this?” One of the shortest answers, by Joshu, to both questions: “We get tired, bringing in firewood and carrying water.” This is the work of Zen monks, and Joshu answers in a kind of haphazard, Alice in Wonderland way, but the meaning is that the questions are interesting and excit­ ing, but there is not any rational answer that we can give to them, or should want to. Gozu’s “temple” was always surrounded by tigers and wolves. The 4th Patriarch, hearing of Gozu, visited him. At this time he was immersed in zazen and im­ perturbably took no notice of the Patriarch, who said to him, ‘What are you up to?” “I am meditating on the mind,” replied 6ozu. “Who is he who is meditat- ing? What is the mind?” asked the Patriarch. At this, Gozu threw himself at the feet of the Patriarch and be­ came his disciple. An anecdote which belongs also to this time, perhaps, is the following. The 4th Patriarch went to the mountain where Gozu lived. Entering the hermitage he pretended to be afraid of a tiger. Gozu said, “Are you still like that?” “Like what?” said the Patriarch. Gozu came to a realisation on the spot. In a letter to Blake, 1848, Thoreau wrote, “If we are timid, let us, then, act timidly.” The aim of Zen is Mind, not peace of mind. At this time it was not uncommon for Zen monks to be on good terms with tigers. Bukan (Fegkan) S T , the friend of Kanzan (Hanshan) and Jittoku (Shihte) was sometimes seen riding on a tiger, so it is said. St. Jerome had his lion, perhaps a distant relative of that of Androcles. Una also had her pro­ tecting lion, but the Zen tigers are different from the Christian lions. Another story is that when his monks lacked food he went to Tanyd (Tanyang)丹陽， a distant place, every Hakurakuten 11

morning, and every evening brought back a heavy load of rice to feed three hundred persons. The Second Gozu, whose name was Chigan (Chihyen) 智巖 ， was a man seven feet six inches tall, and a great warrior. At the age of forty he became a monk, enter­ ed Gozu^ monastery, and was later appointed his suc­ cessor, dying in 677 at the age of 78. The 3rd in suc- cession was Eh6 (Huifang)慧 方 • The 4th, H6ji (Fachih) 法持， met the 5th Patriarch of orthodox Zen, K6nin, and was one of his ten disciples. He afterwards became the successor of Eho. The 5th, ChYi(Chihwei)智 威 ， who died in 729 A.D., was a contemporary of Tenno and Hyakujo. One of his disciples was Kakurin Genso (Holin H suansu)鶴林玄素 ， whose disciple again was Kinzan Dokin (Chingshan T a o c h in )径山道欽， the founder of Mdjuji Tem ple,万寿寺. He was a Confucian at first, but in his twenty eighth year met Genso, by whom he was “converted.” He communicated with Baso. Ddkin’s disciple D6rin (T a o lin )道林， became a monk at the age of nine, took the vows at twenty one, and studied the Kegon Sutra. Later in life he enteced the dense pine forest of Mount Shimb6,秦望， and did zazen up a tree. For this reason he was called Ch6ka Z e n ji,鳥 裳 ，Bird-nest Zenji, and Jakus6 Zenji, 鵲巣，Magpie-nest, by his contemporaries because the birds and magpies built their nests beside him. A famous conversation took place between him and Haku­ rakuten, who was the Prefect of that district. He said to him, “You’re in a very dangerous place !” D6rin said, “You’re in a more dangerous one!” Hakurakuten said, •Whafs dangerous about being in charge of this pro- vince?” “How can you say you are not in danger when your passions are burning like fire, and you can’t stop worrying about this and that?” Hakurakuten then ask­ ed, “What is the essence of Buddhism?” Dorin an­ swered, in the words of Shakamuni:

Not to do any evil, To do all goodf 12 Gozu and Roan To purify onself,— This is the teaching Of all the Buddhas. 諸悪莫作，衆善奉行， 自浄其意，是 諸 仏 教 。 Hakurakuten said, “Any child of three knows this.” 1D6rin said, “That’s so, any child of three knows it， but .‘ even a man of eighty can’t do it.” The 6th and last master of Gozu was Echu (Huichung) 慧忠，769, and with him the school came to an end after more than a hundred years. It is said by the way that the Japanese Dengyo Daishi learned Gozu Zen, when he came to China, from Shukunen Zenji. What Gozu Zen was may be best seen in the various ge (verses) of the leaders of it, for example the fol­ lowing by the 6th, Echu:

Thoughts and ideas are illusory; Our nature is without beginning or end;

1If you understand the meaning of this, The Ch*ang Chiang will stop flowing of itself. 念想由来幻，性自無終始， 若得此中意，長江当自止。 There is no wise or foolish, no Buddha or common man; no one possesses anything; all is empty of self­ nature; there is no wisdom to attain to; all names of things are relative, not absolute. It should be noted —something perhaps more important than all this Bud­ dhistic nihilism—that this branch of Zen put into prac­ tice what it taught. For example, they were very “democratic” with birds and beasts, and H6yu and Echii especially made friends with wild tigers, antedating Mrs. Adamson by about 1200 years. Upon their death, the adherents of this sect usually presented their dead bodies to birds and beasts of prey. What is not entirely unconnected with this, they had an excellent sense of humour. Their religion was healthy and mild, without the violence and sarcasm of Rinzai Zen. Hasoda 13 One point should be noted. The genealogical tree of Zen, which is vertical, is of much less importance than all the (mostly unknown) influences of contemporaries and dead writers of different sects and even religions upon impressionable and aspiring monks. Today, 1964, Zen is dying of its verticality. Besides Gozu Zen branching from the 4th Patriarch, Doshin, we have Roan Zen, Laoan Chan, deriving from the 5th Patriarch, Konin. The founder was Sugaku Ean (Sungyueh H u ia n )嵩嶽慧安. （His dates are variously given as 579-706, and 582-709, and he is also said to have died at the age of 128). Monks and nuns un­ attached to monasteries were now ordered to register. To avoid this he wandered here and there, but also helped poor and hungry people. He met the Fifth Patriarch and was certified by him. Summoned in

V Konin

Ean

Hasoda Genkei Ninken

audience by the Emperor K6s6,高 宗 ， he avoided him by going round China to all the famous places, and finally arrived in the mountains of Sugaku, where he was visited by many monks, including Ejo (Huaijang) 懷譲， who also visited the 6th Patriarch, En6. Among Ean’s many disciples were Ninken (Jenchien)仁後， and Has6da (Potsaoto)破竈堕. Ninken was nicknamed T6t6 O sh6,騰騰和尙， which means Master Free-lance. Called by the Empress of the time, he entered her chamber, was silent for some time, then asked, “Do you under­ stand?” “Not at all,” she replied. “I keep my vow of silence,” he concluded, and left the poor woman feeling at a loss. 14 Gozu and Roan Hasoda was a funny sort of chap. There was a mausoleum in which there was an oven used for the sacrificial boiling to death of animals etc. Hasoda, to­ gether with another monk, one day entered the mausoleum and broke up the oven with their staves. From this destruction of the furnaces of Moloch he was called Has6da, “Oven-Breaker•，’ Compare Po Chiii^ poem given on pages 36-37 of Oriental Humour. Roan Zen was a very Bohemian, whimsical thing, reminding us of Fudaishi, 497-569. Ean used to open and shut his eyes when asked by a monk about Zen. Ninken behaved wildly in the places he visited, not to say before the Empress. The giving of the name “Oven-Breaker” by Ean to the otherwise nameless monk who like Elijah broke up the altars of the false gods tells the same story of the approbation of Zen lawlessness. Genkei, (Y u a n k u ei)元 挂 ， another disciple of Ean, bestowed the commandments,戒 ， on the god of the mountain, showing his animism. However, like Gozu Zen, Roan Zen was perhaps too free, too existential to continue. For Zen to be a real sect, a long-lasting one, freedom had to be largely restricted, indeed reserved for special occasions only, in a mechanised, monastic life. Roan Zen continued for about a hundred years. The Zen of today is certainly inferior to it. Chapter III

ENO AND HIS DISCIPLES

The division, after the 5th Patriarch, into two schools is an interesting one. It is usually described as result­ ing from the different nature of the Northern and Southern Chinese, and this is no doubt correct, but it corresponds much more deeply to the two kinds of human nature, the two main kinds of human beings which Lamb characterised as the people who borrow and the people who lend, in other words, the active and the passive, the masculine and feminine, the (later) Rinzai and Soto branches of the Zen Sect. Jinshii was Dr. Watson to En6’s Sherlock Holmes, and by sticking to the factual, Buddhist truth, that we must train ourselves in virtue, improve our charac­ ters and taste, he has earned the contempt of all subsequent generations, whereas Eno, with his (also one-sided) transcendentalism and denial of anything obviously so, such as the necessity of polishing a mirror in order to make it reflect better, and by saying no when we expect yes, has become the pattern of all would-be Zen eccentrics. Another peculiarity of End, more admirable, was his aversion to zazen. Eno seems to have got his Zen first from cutting (and selling) fire­ wood, and then after entering the 5th Patriarch^ temple by pounding rice (and of course eating it). There are several anecdotes concerning zazen which pour contempt upon Jinshu. One is that Jinshu used to tell his dis­ ciples to concentrate their minds on quietness, to sit doing zazen for a long time, and not to lie down as far as possible. One of them went to Eno and asked him about it. En6 said, “To concentrate the mind on quietness is a disease of the mind, and not Zen at all. 16 End and His Disciples What an idea, restricting the body to sitting all the time ! That is useless. Listen to my verse: To sit and not lie down during one’s life-time, To lie and never sit during one’s death-time，一 Why should we thus task This stinking bag of bones? The disciples of Eno and Jinshu were on bad terms, and spoke ill of one another, but Jinshii himself was a modest man, and said, “The Fifth Patriarch made En6 the Sixth; was this an accident?” He does not seem to have been as “stupid,” that is, merely Buddhistic, as his southern rivals portrayed him. He is reported to have said that <

Kataku Genkaku Nany5 Kutta Nangaku Seigen (Yoka Daishi) Sanzd

Genkaku (Hsiianchueh)玄覚 ， was one 〇f the most famous of En6，s disciples. His meeting with Eno, Seigen and Nangaku 17 described in the Platform Sutra，1 is perhaps the most dramatic of Zen encounters. The Shodoka2 remains one of the best Zen poems of the Buddhist, luxuriant, verbose type. He died in 713. Another interesting disciple of the forty three (of whom details are known of nineteen) is Kataku (Hotse) 荷 沢 ， 668-760. It is said that he studied the sutras, Chuangtse and Laotse, the Later Chinese Classics, be- came a priest of Kokushoji Tem ple,国 昌 寺 ， and then went to see the 6th Patriarch at Sokei at the age of thirteen. The account of this interview, which is given in the Platform Sutra, shows master Jinne (Shenhui) to have been a very precocious and self-assured person. He remained with the 6th Patriarch several years, and after making a tour of the famous places of China re­ turned to Ch^ngan. Going to the 6th Patriarch once more, he was certified by him. He propagated the Southern School Zen in Loyang where at the time only the teaching of the Northern School was known. Kataku Zen was of a highly intellectual kind. It was his great- great-grandson in the faith, Keih6 (K u eifen g )圭 峰 , 760-641, who divided Zen into five types: heretical Zen, common or garden Zen, Hinayana Zen, Mahayana Zen, and the Highest Mahayana Zen. The two disciples of Eno from whom descend all the later masters and schools are Seigen and Nangaku. From Seigen come Sekito, Yakusan, Tanka, Tenno and so on, and three of the branches of Zen, Soto, Hogen, and Ummon. From Nangaku come Baso, Nansen, Dai- bai, Hyakujo, Obaku, Isan, and the two other branches Rinzai and Igyo. The other groups, Gozu, Hoan, and the Northern School of Jinshu were forgotten, as result of the successive appearance of Zen geniuses through Seigen and Nangaku. However, for a long time the Southern and Northern Schools persisted, and the rivalry between them. Sekito^ Sandokai was an at­ tempt to heal the breach, which disappeared of itself.

1. See Vol. I, page 105. 2. See Vol. I, page 107 ff. 18 End and His Disciples Seigen (Chingyuan)靑 原 ，who died in 740, [ t great number of disciples. His Zen teaching wa and severe. An example: A monk came ^ „ him, “What is the object of Daruma’s coming to Seigen answered, aHe went off again somewhere. m e monk then said, lil ask you for one or two words ot wisdom•” Seigen said, “Come closer !” The monk went closer. “Write it down clearly,” said Seigen. , Thoreau says, “Crack away at these nuts of mans origin, purpose, and destiny as long as you can; the very exercise will ennoble you一 and you may get something better than the answers you expect3. He also writes, “We must repeatedly withdraw into our shells of thought, like the tortoise, somewhat help- lessly.’’4 Nangaku (Nanyiieh)南 嶽 ， born in 677, became a priest when he was fifteen, met Ean, and then studied under the 6th Patriarch for fifteen years. It was he who was responsible for Baso’s enlightenment, besides eight others. He died in 744 at the age of sixty eight. Nan- gaku is remembered as having been in the Rinzai line of Zen. When En6 first saw Nangaku he asked him, “Where are you from?” “I have come from SQzan (Sungshan) •” “What is it that corned?” asked En6. “It is nothing like a thing that comes,” answered Nangaku. ^Can we at­ tain to it by religious exercises?^ queried End. Nangaku answered, “That is not impossible, but it is impossible to spoil it in any way.” En6 said, “Just this unspoilable thing is what all the Buddhas have kept in mind. You have done the same, and so have I. Prajnatara, the 27th Patriarch of India, prophesied concerning you that afterwards you would send forth a horse that would trample to death the people of the world.” The last statement is an apochryphal prophecy of the appearance of Baso,馬 祖 ， “Horse-founder.” “What is it which comes?” The aim of Zen is not to answer the

3. Letter to Wiley, 1856. 4. Letter to Blake, 1855. Baso 19 question in words, or even in actions, but to be this “he,” or “it,” or indeed she or they, in other words the aim of Zen is to come. Never ask a question. Never answer a question. DonH even say anything about asking or answering. “l!t cannot be spoiled, or soiled. Dirt is said to be only matter in the wrong place, but from the point of view of Zen, dirt is just matter in its place, like a diamond or a cloud. The use of the circle, which comes from the Kegon doctrine of the Interpenetration of the Six Charac­ teristics, 六 相 義 ， or 六 相 円融， is said to have begun with Nangaku, and was later extended by the Igyo Sect (® 仰 ） but opposed by others. Circles and Cow-herding Pictures and all such adventitious aids are really only hindrances in the end, and at the beginning. Nangaku practised the Nembutsu, as it was by Hoji, 法 持 ， fourth in the line of Gozu Zen, and his own Zen is not quite distinctive enough. The anecdotes are few and not particularly interesting except that of his teaching Baso that doing zazen is not the secret of enlightenment. When Baso was living in Demb6in,伝 法 院 ，he did zazen every day. Nangaku, realising he was a vessel of the Law, went and asked him, “ Sir, what is your idea in doing zazen?” “IintendtobecoxneBuddha/’ saidBaso. Nangaku took up a tile and polished it in front of the hermitage. Baso said, “What is it you are doing?” Nangaku said, “Polishing it to make it into a mirror.” “How can you make a mirror by polishing a tile?” expostulated Baso. “How can you become a Buddha by doing zazen/* retorted Nangaku. Another version gives an abstract reproof. Nangaku asked Baso, “Are you learning zazen or zabutsu 坐 佛 ？ If it is zazen, well, Zen has nothing to do with sitting or lying down. If it is zabutsu, Buddha has no fixed form. The truth, which is placeless, is not something to be accepted or rejected. Zabutsu is killing the Bud­ dha. Being attached to the sitting position, you can never attain to the Reason of Things.” Hearing this 20 End and His Disciples account of the matter, Baso felt as if he had drunk the elixir of life. Nangaku is remembered more for his disciple Baso than for himself, a kind of John the Baptist. Sekit6(Shiht‘o u )石 頭 ， 700-790, met En6 when young, and studied under Seigen after his death. He went to Nangakunanji Temple, and built a hermitage on a large stone like the palm of a hand to the east of it. From this he was called “Master Stone-head.” He composed the Sandokai to propagate the teachings of the Sudden School, at the same time accepting those of the Gradual School. A monk asked Sekitd, “What is the inner significance of Daruma’s coming to the West?” Sekit6 said, “Go and ask the outside post of the Hall !” • The monk said, “I don’t know what you mean.” “Nor do I,” said Sekita An effect has a cause, but what is the (ultimate) cause of the cause? A cause has an effect, but what is the ultimate effect? God felt lonely, and created the universe. Quite possibly, but why did he (suddenly) feel lonely? • When H6un (Pangyun)龐 親 ，met Sekit6 for the first time, he asked “Who is he who does not accompany all things?” Sekito put his hand over Houn^ mouth. Houn suddenly came to a realisation. This reminds us of Stevenson’s “I will not question more.” Joshu, in his goroku, says that when he was with Sekito, and anyone asked him a question (about Zen), Sekito would say, uShut your mouth! No barking like a dog, please!” One day Sekito was walking in the hills with his disciple Sekishitsu (Shijishih)石 室 ， and seeing more branches obstructing the path asked him to cut them away. “I didn’t bring a knife,” said Sekishitsu. Sekit6 took out his own and held it out, blade-end first, to Sekishitsu， who said, “Please give me the other end•” <4What would you do with it?,J asked Sekito, and Seki- shitsu came to a realization. The beginning of the world, and the Day of Judge­ Sekitd 21 ment, birth and death, understanding and not under­ standing this anecdote, are the same, (although they are also quite different.) Is not the effect the origin of the cause, since every effect m ust have a cause? Cause and effect are two names of one process, which is simultaneous. This is the half-fact which Zen makes us realise, but the truth, the whole truth, is not yet there. The handle is also the handle, and the blade is the blade,—but not quite as much as unenlightened common sense supposes. The blade is the handle, and the handle the blade, but not quite as much as some Zen adepts pretend. Sekit6 asked a new arrival, “Where have you come from?” “From K6zei (Chianghsi)，” he replied. “Did you see the Great Ba (Ma) ?”， “I did.” Pointing to the stump of a tree Sekito said, uHow is Ba, compared with this?” The monk made no reply. Going back to Ba the Master, he told him about this. The Master said, “You saw the stump and the kindlings; how large was it?” “Enormous,” said the monk. “What a Hercules you must b e !’’ the Master exclaimed. “Why?” said the monk. “You carried that stump all the way from Nangaku (Nanyueh) here; isn’t that a Hercules?” Do things resemble one another, as similes propose, or are they really quite different, as comparisons sug­ gest, or are things identical, as metaphors proclaim? What is the relation between the great Zen Master Baso and the stump of tree, a useless thing that can hardly be used to make a fire? God loves both equally, b u t do they both love God equally? The most profound of all English proverbs, the one which has most Zen in it is, “Comparisons are odious”； it is even better in Bottom’s variation; “Comparisons are odorous,” that is, they stink, of un-Zen. Sekito is remembered for these and many other Zen episodes, and also because he is in the line of Soto Zen, Sekito, Yakusan, Ungan, Tozan. Of his disciples twenty- one became enlightened, the most famous of them be­ ing Tenno, Tanka, and Yakusan. Yoka Nanyo

Dai ten Choshi Tanka Yakusan Sekishitsukiihiti Suibi Seihei Tosu

G yito

Chapter IV

SEKITG’S DISCIPLES I

Tanka (Tanhsia)丹 霞 ， 738-824, was the disciple of Sekit6, and his conduct was strange, like that of Lear’s Old Man. He learned Zen first under Baso, then went to Sekito, then studied in a temple of the Tendai Sect. He is famous for warming himself by burning Buddhist statues. He enlightened many people and spread the Zen of Seigen in the northern provinces. One day, on his way to see Baso, Tanka met an old man with a boy, and asked them where they lived. The old man answered, “Above is the sky; below is the earth!” Tanka said, “How about if the sky crumbled away and the earth fell to pieces?” The old man said, “A h ! A h !” The boy drew a deep breath. Tanka Isan Rinzai Tenno Kyozan Ryutan To^usan

Kotei Ganto Taigen Chokei HP Ge驗sha Kyosei Ankoku Ummon R^an (Keichin) Kyorin Tozan (Shusho) Hogen Zuigan Razan ioon Rakan Tendai Reiin Seirvo (Shunin) I I Eimy5 Ungo Meisha, Seihei (Enju)

said, “If there were no father, no child would be born.” The old man and the child entered the mountains and j were seen no more. ' Strange people meet other strange people, it may be by some unknown gravitation. The old man gave a Taoistanswer,butTanka’snextquestionwasaZenone. “Heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of the Lord abideth for ever.” What is the meaning of the old man’s exclamation, literally “Blue sky !” and the boy’s long slow breath? It was an acquiescence in the inevitable which we find in Laotse and Chuangtse. Tanka is more dynamic, but the meeting was well worth recording. 24 Sekito's Disciples l Concerning Tanka*s burning of the Buddhist images at Erinji Temple to warm himself, the universal opinion was that what he did was right, was Zen, but the action had further repercussions. Suibi (Tsuiw ei)翠 微 ， a con­ temporary of Tanka, was one day making oblations be- fore the Rakan, the Buddha’s disciples, when a monk said to him, “Tanka burned the wooden Buddha, and do you hold a requiem mass before the Rakan?J, Suibi answered, “Even though it was burned, it could not be burned up completely, and anyway, let me hold a service if I want to !” The monk persisted, “When you hold a service for the Rakan, do they come and eat the offerings, or not?” Suibi retorted, “Do you eat every day or not?” The monk was silent. Suibi said, “Clever people are scarce!” (Suibi was the disciple of Tanka, but little is known of his life other than a few anecdotes. One is given here. Suibi asked Tanka who was the teacher of all the Buddhas. Tanka told him he^ better not take him­ self so seriously, and use the floor cloth and broom more. Suibi took three steps to the rear. “A bloomer !’’ cried Tanka. Suibi then stepped forward three paces. “Another bloomer !’’ said Tanka. Suibi raised one leg and turned round on the other. Tanka said, “You’ve got it; you defied the other teachers of all the Buddhas.” Why is a mouse when it spins? To move without moving is the great art af life. Thoreau says, “The art of life, of a poefs life, is, having nothing to do, to do something.’’） I think Suibi, Tanka’s spiritual son, was a swindler, of the religious type, which always jumps about be­ tween the absolute and the relative according to con- venience. To bow before a wooden image is nonsense; to desecrate it is nothing. To offer food to the spirits of the dead or the living or the unborn is superstition, and Zen, of all s6cts, should hav6 been above such things. Singing national anthems, saluting the flag, public pray- 6r, bowing at shrinGs, masses, regarding soine things 3S holy, reading the newspapers, trying to become rich,—- Daiten 25 they are all folly and vulgarity, and naturally go to­ gether. Another swindler was Tenjiku (Tienchu)天 竺 ， who was asked about the matter, and replied, “When it is cold we gather round the hearth by the fire.,> “Was he wrong or not?J, the monk persisted. “When it is hot we sit in a bamboo forest in the valley,” said Tenjiku. More interesting is the following. Dainei (Taining) 大 寧 ， the spiritual son of Razan, was asked by a monk, “Why did the eyebrows of the monk in charge fall off?” Dainei answered, “A robber does not break into a poor man’s house.” “Eyebrows falling off” means being defeated by Tanka. Dainei says that Tanka had nothing in his mind, no prejudice, no justice, no love of truth or Buddhism or Zen. He was just cold. The anecdotes about Tanka are very few, perhaps because he was more iconoclastic than met with ap­ proval, or perhaps rather because he was of a simple and forthright character. Daiten (Tatien) a disciple of Sekito, is remem­ bered only for one or two interesting anecdotes. He seems to have been of a rather severe character« A monk said to Daiten, “The waves of the ocean of pain are deep; how can we make a boat or raft to cross it?” Daiten answered, “With wood.” The monk asked, uHow can we transport ourselves across the river of transmigration?” Daiten said, “The blind are born blind, the deaf-mutes deaf-mutes.” Daiten scorns the monk and his questions. Perhaps it would have been better to dissemble a little, for Daiten himself was not perfect. Kanyu (H anyu)韓 愈 ，visited Daiten, and said to him, “How many springs and autumns have you seen?” Dai­ ten held up his rosary, and then asked, <4Do you under­ stand?^ Kanyu answered, 4 Daiten said, “Both in the day-time and in the night-time there are a hundred and eight.” Kanyu didn’t know what to make of it, and went back home feeling miserable. His wife 26 Seldto's Disciples l asked him what had happened to displease him, and he told her. She said, “Why not go and ask Daiten what he meant?” The next day, early in the morning, off he went to the temple, and happened to meet the head monk at the gate. “Why have you come so early to the temple?” he asked. “I want to ask the Master something,” he replied. “What is the cause of your problem,’’ askedtheheadmonk,andKanyutoldhim. “Ask m e!” said the monk. Kanyu said, “What is the meaning of a hundred and eight beads?” The monk shut his teeth together three times. Kanyu met the master and continued his former questioning. Daiten shut his teeth together three times. Kanyu said, “I knew before that Buddhism is all the same.” “Why do you say that?” asked Daiten. “A little while ago,” said Kanyu, “I met the head monk at the gate, and he did the same thing.” Daiten sent for the head monk, and said to him, <4A while ago, did you explain what Bud­ dhism was?” “Yes,” said the monk. Daiten struck him, and drove him out of the temple. Cynically speaking, the head monk infringed Daiten's patent, but beside this natural indignation at (spiri­ tually) profitable imitation, and consequent cheapening of his (Zen) goods, there is the fact that, as Thoreau says, “Only nature may repeat herself.” Only those who are quite natural may repeat themselves, but it is dangerous even for them. To try to be original or unique, and never to repeat oneself,—this is also as unnatural as doing something just because you did it before. The holding tip of the rosary means that a man is as old as the number of religious, poetical, artistic moments that he has lived. A Buddhist monk is often given two ages, his years of life, and the number of years he has been a monk. For example, Hogen died at the age of seventy four. His Dharma age was fifty four, which means that he became a monk, that is, took the vows, at the age of twenty. Another meaning of the rosary is shown also by there being a hundred and eight both in the day-time and at night. The Choshi 27 rosary is as it is, neither holy nor unholy; like God, it is the same for ever and ever, also signified by its being circular. The hundred and eight beads are that num­ ber of delusions (the number is arrived at in several ways of counting). The meaning of the champing of the jaws three times is that we must cut off perfectly the notion of time (and place) in order to arrive at the absolute, from whence we must then transcend both absolute and relative. Kanyu, who died in 824, is fa­ mous for having opposed the Emperor’s superstitious worship of Buddhist relics. He seems to have been very interested in Zen, despite a ferocious hatred of Buddhism. There is an anecdote showing that he knew how to have his revenge for any defeats by Zen masters. He said to a monk, “I hear you are lecturing on the J6r〇Ti 肇 論 ， is that so?” “It is so，” answered th^ monk. “Does this teaching contain something aboul the Four Unchangeables?” asked Kanyu. “It does,” re-^ plied the monk. Kanyu then took a tea-cup and broke! it, and said, “Is this changing or unchanging?” The monk was silent. Ch6shi (Changtzu)長 髭 ， whose dates are unknown, was a disciple of Sekito. When he first went to see him Sekito said, “Where have you come from?” “From Daiyd- reito, 大 庾 嶺 頭 “Did you succeed in getting any merit to show from there or not?” Choshi said, *1 had some success in the end, but could not paint in the eyes of the Buddhist image.’’1 “Do you want to put in the eyes, or not?” “I beg you to help me to do so，” said Choshi. Sekito stuck out his leg. Choshi bowed. Seki­ to asked, ^What perception of truth made you bow?>, Ch6shi said “It was like a flake of snow in a red-hot fire.” Ch6shi’s reply, which comes in the 69th Case of the Hekiganroku,1 2 means that nothing remains (of himself), a reply which I do not myself approve of, since the

1. Gain final enlightenment. 2. In the Introduction,垂示， £ngo says that a real Zen-man is so. 28 Sekito9s Disciples 1 simile, like all similes, is misleading to misleadable human beings. _ • There are several anecdotes concerning Ch6shi, all interesting, because concrete, “a sort of thought in sense,” but rather long. Ch6shi’s disciple was Seki- shitsu (Shihshih)石 室 • One day Ky6zan (Hsingshan) 杏 山 ， said to him, “I hear you visited Tai San mountain. Did you meet the Bodhisattva Manjusri?” “I did.” “What did he say to you?” “He said, ‘The mother and father who gave you your body are in the rank grasses.’ ’’ Kyozan made no comment. This is interesting as another example of the priests’ interest in the people with whom they had cut their ties of love, and who still lived in deep illusion. One day Ky6zan (Yangshan)仰 山 ，was looking at the moon together with Sekishitsu, and asked him, “Where does the roundness of the moon go when it becomes sharp, crescent? Where does the sharpness go when it becomes round?” Sekishitsu said, “When it is sharp the roundness is still there. When it is round it is still sharp.” This is a rather good example for the difficult teaching that enlightenment is illusion, illusion enlightenment; difference is sameness, sameness difference. Chapter V

SEKITO，S DISCIPLES II

Tenno and Yakusan are important in themselves, and also as leading, respectively, to Tozan and Sozan, and Hogen and Ummon. Tenno (Tienhuang) ^ 4 , stopped eating when he was fourteen in order to force his parents to let him become a monk. After studying under several masters he came to Baso, and remained with him two years. Then he visited Sekit6 and got enlightened under him. Later, he restored and revived Tennoji Temple, hence his name. The end of his (monkish) life was interesting like its beginning. When he was on the point of death, the monks of the temple came and asked him how he was. He immediately called for the tenzo,典 座 ，the monk in charge of food and clothes in a temple. The monk came to his bedside. “Do you understand?” Tenno asked. The tenzo said, “No, I don，t.” Tenno picked up his pillow, threw it outside, and passed away. This was the year 807 A.D., six years after the Battle of Maldon. Ryiitan (Lungtan)龍 潭 ， had been with his master Tenno three years, when one day he suddenly said to him, ill have been with you all this time, and received! n 〇 teaching from you!” Tenno said, uEver since youl came here, when have I not taught you?,> ^Taught mel when?” said Ryiitan. Tenn6 replied, “When you brought tea, I received it from you. When you brought a meal, I received that too. When you bowed to me, I inclined my head to you. When did I not teach you?” Ryatan stood there thinking. Tenn6 said, “When you look, just look. If you wonder about it, you won’t get to the point.” Ryutan was enlightened. When Tokusan first visited Ryutan he said, <4I have Tokusan and Rinzai, by Sengai

Tokusan holds a staff in his hand, not the short and handy one he was wont to use on his disciples (but never on himself). The writing by the side says:

道得不得摁三十棒 Whether you manage to speak or not,— The same thirty blows!

The rain falls upon the just and upon the unjust. Rinzai carries a kind of spade. One day there was a (Zen) argument and a (Zen) struggle between Rinzai and Obaku. When it was over, Rinzai said,

這裏活埋諸方火葬 Everywhere (else) they are cremated; Here, buried alive.

Rinzai means that in other temples people are dead while they are alive, and when they die their bodies are burned. In this temple, under Obakn, we are really alive, and we die daily, and are buried daily, and are resurrected daily. To bury a dead man is a waste of time. It is the really living who must gain their life by losing it. At 30 Sekit6fs Disciples II heard the name Ryutan (Dragon-Abyss) for a long time; now I stand before you, but where’s the dragon? Where’s the abyss? I don’t seem to see them !” Ryutan said,“YouhavenowseenRy(itancloseathand.” Toku- san made his bows and departed. A dragon is not dreadful,—not the real one. An abyss is not frightening, an infinitely deep one. What is dreadful is the thought that the universe has not the power to save itself; what is frightful is the (scientific) thought that the universe is shallow and limited. It was this fear that drove Nietzsche out of his mind. Besides Tokusan, Ryutan had one more well-known disciple, Rokutan (Letan) •勒渾 but Tokusan was far more famous. After receiving his enlightenment from Ryutan he visited Isan and later had many disciples, among whom were Ganto, and Seppo. He died in 865 at the age of eighty six. Tokusan’s enlightenment was one of the oddest, for the immediate cause was “endarkenment,” the blowing out of a candle by his master Ryutan as he was about to take it. Later, Tokusan was asked by a monk “What is bodhi (salvation) ?” He answered, “Be off with y o u ! Don’t bring your dung here!” Again he was asked, “What is the Buddha?” “Just an old monk of the Western World !” Perhaps no question, especially asked to another, is anything but disgusting in its insincerity. We all know what is what, what to do, what not to do, but pretend we don’t by means of asking questions, questions about the meaning of life, the existence of God, and the im­ mortality of the soul. With regard to the second point, to understand that Jesus is the Way, the Light of he World and so on, is not difficult. What is difficult is to understand that Christ was a carpenter, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief. When Tokusan was young, he gave lectures on the Diamond Sutra, but after his enlightenment he used to drive away with a stick any who entered his gate. This intransigent attitude was his chief characteristic. Ganto 31 When he was on a “pngrimage，” that is, visiting great Zen Masters, he went to see Isan. Carrying his bundle of Buddhist necessities with him, he entered the Law Hall, marched from East to West and from West to East, and gazed into Isan’s private room. Isan took no notice of him. Tokusan said, “No, there’s nothing to be got here !” and went out. When he got to the temple gate he said, “There’s no need to be in such a hurry; I will go in and see him again more ceremoniously.” As soon as he had passed the threshold he took out his cushion and said, “Master !’’ Isan reached for his hossu (mosquito-whisk, hair-duster). Tokusan immediately shouted <4Kwatz !,J dusted his sleeves, and went out. That evening Isan asked the head monk if there were any newcomers. He replied, “A while ago, someone turned his back on the Hall, put on his sandals, and went off.” “Do you know who he was?” asked Isan. f‘No idea who he was,” the head monk replied. Isan said, “That chap will make a hermitage on the top of the peak and will scorn the Buddhas and speak ill of the Patriarchs.” Tokusan’s chief disciple, Gant6 (Y entou)巖 頭 ，828-887, was a friend of Seppo and Kinzan (C hinshan)欽山， visited Rinzai and at last Tokusan, by whom he was enlightened. When he settled down in his monastery he always told his monks, “At the end of my life, I will give a great shout, and die.” He was stabbed to death by bandits in his temple, and uttered a loud cry- heard for miles round. A monk asked Ganto, 4

1. Ch*ang-an. 2. A merchant who captured Ch*ang-an, and was then killed by his underlings. Kazan 33 or wrong? This episode, which, by the way, is the 66th Case of the Hekiganroku, is cleverly devised to lead us to a realm transcending rights and wrongs, but at the same time we must state our opinion that apparent­ ly Ganto was wrong, or the monk was misunderstood and ill-used by Seppo. It looks to me as if the monk was proud of his cutting off Ganto^ head, and Seppo perceived this, and snatched the monk’s cheap and blunt sword from him. Razan (Loshan)羅 山 ， whose dates are unknown, was a descendent of Ganto; he first visited Seppo. The most interesting thing in his life was his manner of leaving of it. Feeling his end near, he ascended the rostrum, and for some time opened his left hand; the chief monks could not understand, and he had all the Eastern side monks leave. Then he opened his right hand, and told the Western side monks to go away. To the people he said, “If you wish to show your gratitude for the Bud­ dha’s goodness to you, you can’t be too earnest about propagating the Great Teaching. Now, go ou t! Go out V9 He then burst into a loud laugh and died. Binno (Minwang) asked Razan to give the first lecture in a temple. Razan ascended the rostrum, took off his robe, bade them farewell, and came down. Binno went up to him, and taking Razan by the hand said to him, “The meeting at the Holy Mountain was no different from this !” Razan replied, “I thought you were just a common fellow.” The “meeting at the Holy Mountain” refers to Bud­ dha’s preaching at Grdhrakuta Mountain, when he silently held up a flower. Binno was showing off his knowledge of Zen, and Razan seems to be compliment­ ing him on it,—a rather “common” scene. Both Razan and Binno know all the tricks of the trade. When Razan first met Sekiso, he asked him, <4What shall we do when thoughts never stop rising and dis­ appearing?” Sekisd said, “Be cold ashes and a withered tree! Spotless purity! First impressions for ten thousand years ! A box and its lid exactly fitting!” 34 Sekitd*s Disciples II Razan could not grasp the meaning, and went to Ganto with the same question. Gant6 shouted “Kwatz !” and asked, “Who rises and disappears?” Razan was pro­ foundly enlightened. Sekiso adopted what we now think of as Soto strategy, but Ganto used Rinzai tactics. The fact that the second was successful in Razan’s case does not of course mean that the second was in any way superior. We are doomed on the torture of the mind to lie In restless ecstasy, and, like Razan, we want to escape from it. Sekiso tells us how to escape, but Ganto releases us, by re­ minding us that these thoughts that arise, arise because they should, and disappear because they should. “Let them arise and disappear,” says Gant6. The servants come in and go out of the room, but the master sits there at ease with his slippers on, and looks at the green fields and mountains outside the window. Thoreau writes in his Jo urna l:

When I am condemned and condemn myself utter­ ly, I think straightway, but I rely on my love for some things. Therein I am whole and entire. Therein am I God-propped. Zen is to be whole and entire, while thoughts arise in their partial confusion and disappear into their mean­ ingless nonentity. Zen is to be God-propped, but “Who,” Gant6 asks, “is pro卯 ed?” “Nobody,” is also the wrong answer. “Who props us?” Ganto asks. “Nobody,” is als© Ihe wrong answer. A monk asked Razan, “Who is the Master of the Three Realms?*J Hazan answered, “Do you know how to 的 t rice?” The Three Realms,三界， （not the Three Worlds,三世， which are the past, present, and future) is the Trailokya, the worlds of desire, form, and formlessnessj one might paraphrase them, with an extreme simplification, as sex, Razan 35 art, and Zen. The monk seems almost as if asking about the existence of God, and Razan's answer is the Chinese story of the Good Samaritan, but with the Jewish brotherly love omitted. The Japanese, on their part, have learned and taught how to eat rice properly, more especially, how to drink tea properly. But the point is this: eating rice properly is the master. It is the Master who eats it properly all the time we gobble it down or push it in with distaste. This person is a Person, a non-person, a Non-person, Wordsworth’s “Presence.” One day Razan went to SenshQ,泉 州 ， and Tan Ch6r6, 坦 長 老 ， was making tea on the road. Upon the saluta­ tion Tan gave a cup of tea to Razan after drinking some himself. Razan was just about to drink the tea when Tan said, “Nice-tasting tea?” Razan spat it out. Tan said nothing, Razan laughed a great laugh. This anecdote provides us with a definition of Zen. Zen is good manners. “Good manners” means spitting out food or tea or books or people when they are vulgar, affected, sentimental, effusive, or humourless, hypo­ critical or fanatical,—in a word, when they are what they usually are. Lawrence writes: “Reject people. It is like a poison gas they live in, and one is so few and so fragile in one’s own small, subtle air of life.” Tan perhaps was a man like the Japanese Baicha 6, u01d T ea-seller,1675-1763, of the Obaku Sect, who used to make tea (then a luxury) by the wayside and sell cups of it. Meish6, or My6sh6 (M ingchao)明 招 ， whose dates of birth and death are unknown, was a disciple and spiritual son of Razan. At his first meeting with Razan, he jumped to his feet as soon as he had made his bows, and Razan asked him where he had come from. Telling him, Meisho asked, uWhat is it that is happening just at this moment?” Razan saluted him graciously, and said, “Have some tea !’’ Meisho hesitated, and Razan said, “It’s a warm autumn day; why don，t you go out somewhere?” Meisho sighed, and thought that he had started off full of ambition, and it had all come to this, 36 Sekito's Disciples II to nothing. The next day he tried again, but Razan said, “The feathers are not fully grown and the wings are not strong enough yet; go away!’’ Afterwards, when he was enlightened, he did not stay in one spot, but went round the country converting all kinds of people. At last he settled down in Meisho Mountain, from which he then took his name, living there forty years. When he was about to die, he ascended the rostrum and admonished and instructed the monks. That evening he stretched out his legs and said to the monk-attendant, “Long ago, Shaka Nyorai stretched out both legs, and a hundred treasures of glorious light were emitted. Tell me, aren’t I emitting some?” The attendant replied, “In ancient times, the Crane Grove; today, your honour !’’ Meisho rumpled his eyebrows and said, “Isn’t some fox making a fool of me?” He then recited a gatha, sat in the proper way and quietly and slowly passed away. After a lecture Meisho pointed to a lion on the Seat of the Law that wagged its head, and said, UI wonder what it always wants to tell me?” A monk said, “In what aeon would it say something to you?” Meisho said, “Ah, you are still worlds away !’’ Animism embraces not only furniture and toys but even machines. In Wordsworth certain times have or are souls; D.H. Lawrence believed in the soul of place. Every thing is incessantly preaching the truth to us. There is something special the lion says, that people are inferior to things in their power to teach. I myself was born to repeat this truth. There was a certain monk in Meisho^ temple who left it and lived by himself in a hermitage. After a year he came back to the temple and said, “There is an ancient saying, 4Do not look with the same eyes upon a man you have not seen for three days!， ” Meisho bared his breast and said, “Tell me, how many hairs have I on this “liver-lid” of mine?，， The monk was silent. Then Meish6 asked him, “When did you leave the hermitage?” “Early this morning.” “When you Meisho 37 came here,” said Meishd， “to whom did you intend to give your three-legged saucepan with one leg missing?” The monk still had nothing to say. Meisho said, “Kwatz !” Any enlightenment which requires to be authenticat­ ed, certified, recognised, congratulated, is (as yet) a false, or at least an incomplete one. We are social animals it is true, but we must often resist the tempta­ tion to share our experiences. Even Kierkegaard wrote like mad in order to have at least one reader agree with him. During his travelling, angya, Meisho went to see Z6den2 (Hsiangtien)象 田 ；though desiring to leave, he was not allowed to. Meisho said, ul have a question; if you can answer it, I won’t go; if you can’t, don’t stop me.” He picked up a hair and blew it away and said, ‘*What did the ancients mean?” Zoden was silent, and Meisho said goodbye, and off he went. This is not a very striking episode, but shows how the masters of Zen used it in a variety of ways for their own spiritual comfort. One of the officials of the temple was the chief monk, but he never washed. Another of the officials said, “Doesn’t know the difference between clean and dirty ! Has nothing to do with water!” Meisho came down from his seat, took the water-pot and asked him, “Is this dirty or clean?” The official was silent. Meisho dashed the pot to pieces. This is not the same as Moses breaking the Tables of Law, but it is not different. Meisho seems to have been like Dr. Johnson, who “had no passion for clean linen•” Together with Kyo Joza (Chiao) Wc., and some others, Meishd was at the house of a certain man, and they were eating fruit. Meisho picked up a kanran (kanlan) 橄蘭 ， and called to Ky6. Ky6 responded. Meish6, with the fruit in his hand, said to him, “How can you get

2. There seem to be no accounts of the life of this “ Elephant- field.” 38 Sekitdfs Disciples II hold of this?” Ky6 reached over the table and grabbed it. Meish6 said “Kwatz !，， and added, “Once dead, never resurrectsd !’， Greediness, acquisitiveness, what is called in Bud­ dhism upadana, is the ninth of the Twelve Nidanas, links in the chain of (unpoetical) existence. In the Buddhist ^em blem s,it is represented by a couple in sexual union. Meisho says that once this ^snatching at existence, at things, has been given up, it never re­ turns. While it is not given up, it never ceases to plague us. Meishd was not, like Ummon, a Zen genius, but he had his own Zen, and showed a tendency to move in the direction of Japanese Zen, in that he applies Zen to the ordinary affairs of life, and castigates those whose manners are bad, who flatter, or equivocate. He has not yet, however, the specially Japanese form of Zen, universal good taste. Zuigan (Juiy§n)瑞 巖 ， dates unknown, became a priest early in life, and was enlightened by Ganto, and then learned under Kassan. He sat every day like a fool, on a flat stone. He used to call to himself, and answer, saying, “Don’t let yourself be laughed at by those who come after you Vf Zuigan asked Ganto, 4

SEPPO

Sepp6 (HsiiehM ng)雪 峰 ，822-908, like Gant6, was a spiritual son of Tokusan; his own disciples were said to be not less than 1500, of whom those who were en­ lightened numbered 42. The most famous of his dis­ ciples was Ummon. Seppo comes in the 13th Case of the M um onkan. He laboured hard as a cook, and carried a ladle with him wherever he went. The number of anecdotes concerning Seppo is extraordinarily large. The following are some of the most interesting. Seppo was cutting trees one day with Chosei (Changsh§ng)長 生 ， and said to him, “When you cut, cut to the heart, then stop.” Chdsei said, “I have cut and finished !” Seppo said, ^Former masters transmitted the truth from mind to mind; would you really say that you have cut and finished?” Chosei said, throwing the axe to the ground, “It is transmitted !” Seppo struck him with his stick. In general we may say that a (verbal) question should have a physical answer; throwing the axe to the ground was enough, provided it was thrown properly, and say­ ing <4It has been transmitted, is legs to the snake. This is not mere addition of unnecessary ornament, but the deformation, the denaturalisation of a living organism. A little too much, or not quite enough,—and what worlds away in the regions of religion and art! Also, we may say, Chosei was too definite in his assertion. We should be definite about (apparently) indefinite things, and indefinite about (apparently) definite things. Actions, on the other hand, should always be definite. By their finity they attain infinity. When Seppo was at Tozan^, he was the cook, and 40 Seppo every morning he gave the congregation of monks their gruel at the same time, irrespective of the weather. T6zan said to him, “How can you always tell what time to give the gruel?” Sepp6 answered, “By the stars and the moon.” T6zan persisted, “But when it’s drizzling, or mist hangs over the sky, what do you do then?” Seppo made no reply. We may explain this in two ways. Seppo no doubt had a clock in his belly. I myself have one, but Seppo, living such a regular life, physically and spiritually, could tell the time at almost any moment of the day. This is the psychological explanation, but one with more Zen in it is the following. When we live the life of Zen, for twenty four hours a day, eighty odd years a life, we must answer people according to ordinary so-called common sense. If we are asked, “What day of the week is it?” we must not answer, “There are no days of the week in the universe!” or be silent, or shout “Kwatz!” However, once is enough; we are not required to answer foolsaccordingtotheirfollyrepeatedly.SowithDr. Johnson, who became angry in the end and said, “I will not be put to the question !” A monk said to Sepp6, “The seeing into his nature of a Sravaka1 is like gazing at the moon at night;2 a bodhisattvas seeing into his nature is like the sun in the day-time.3 uMay I ask what y o u r seeing into your nature was like?” Seppo struck him three times with his stick. Afterwards the monk went to Ganto and asked him the same question. Ganto cuffed him three times. To ask another person about his satori is like asking how much money he has in the bank, or whether he loves his wife. Good manners applies to all things with­ out distinction. Indeed, Zen is good taste, or rather, good taste is Zen. Perhaps, after all, beating and slap­ ping is the only way of improving a person^ taste, *3

!• A disciple of the Buddha. 2. Passive, s©lf-saving, 3. Active, world-saving. Joshu 41 religious and artistic. This is the profound meaning of existentialism. The more we suffer, intelligently, the deeper our life. Buddha said that life is suffering, and taught us how to avoid both. This was wrong. Deep suffering is deep life. Shall we then be shallow, and dry up altogether? A monk asked Seppo, <4How about when the old valley water is a cold spring?” Sepp6 answered, “Stare into it as you may, you can’t see the bottom !” The monk said, “What about when we drink the water?” Sepp6 said, “It doesn’t go in the mouth.” The monk went to Joshu and told what had been discussed. Joshu said, “If it won’t go in the mouth, it won’t go through the nostrils.” The monk then asked, “How about when the old valley water is a cold spring?” Joshu said, “How disagreeable it is !’’ The monk said, “What about drinking it?” J6shu said, “You will die.” When Sepp6 heard of this conversation, he said. Joshu is one of the ancient Buddhas,” and made obeisance to him from a distance. After that, he answered no question him­ self. This is one of the most difficult and one of the most profound Zen dialogues. The old well is full of cold water, of an inexpressible colour, clear, but inpenetrable to the eye. Suppose we make this world our own, assimilate it to ourselves? This cannot be done by a mere animal resignation. The monk was not satisfied with this negativistic answer and asked Joshu to go deeper into the matter. Joshu simply agreed with Sepp6, and said, “It can’t be absorbed thoughtlessly either.” But the monk persisted, and asked once more, ‘What do you think of this million-year old, im­ placable universe?” J6shu replied, “It’s a terrible place V9 The monk said, “How about becoming one with the bitterness, and thus eliminating it?” Joshu answered, “The universe is always dying, and unity with it is a kind of crucifixion.” When Seppo heard of this, he realised his previous shallowness, and bowed before an enlightenment far greater than his own, a 42 Seppo sort of blindness from excess of light. Nirvana is often taken as a condition of supreme joy. But it is also that of supreme sadness. The point anyway is not the joy or sadness, but the supremeness. One day Seppo sat down on his seat, and all the monks assembled, and Seppo rolled along a wooden ball. Gensha went after it, and put it back in its original place. To roll a ball is to see the ballness of the ball, its woodenness; and the woodenness, the levelness of the floor; the roundness of the earth, its pullfulness; the desire of the ball to roll, its desire to stop rolling. But besides this spontaneous willfulness of nature there is the thoughtful control, the orderliness, the infinite finality of man. In these two, which work together undivided, yet always separately, as in Seppo and Gensha, is seen Universal Activity, the Buddha nature, Godhead. Another anecdote concerning Seppo and Gensha is the following. Gensha sent a letter to Seppo by one of his monks. Seppo ascended the rostrum and opened the letter-case, which contained three sheets of blank paper. He showed these to the assembled monks, and said, “Do you understand?” After waiting a while, he added, “Don’t you see what this gentleman is saying to me? We are a thousand leagues away, but the same breeze blows on us !” The monk went back and told Gensha what Seppo had said. Gensha exclaimed, “Doesn’t that old chap know when he’s going too far?” Evidently Seppo intended to use his former disciple^ letter as a sort of text to teach his monks, and was agreeably surprised to find nothing but blank paper. His monks however did not share his chortles of delight, but sat there glumly like a lot of Dr. Watsons. “Elementary !” said Sherlock Holmes, but this of course made the monks still more dull. (Unconsciously， this was no doubt Sepp6’s intention.) “We are two birds of a feather，” he declared. The messenger-monk went back and told his tale to Gensha, who, embarrassed by Enkan 43

such sentimentality on the part of his old teacher said in jest what he felt in earnest. The two points to be noted here are first, that though the paper was blank, it was something; it was not nothing at all brought by nobody. In Zen also, ex nihilo nihil; there must be expression, whether in words or (positive) absence of words. Pure spirituality, like anything pure, is null and void. The second point is the affection, we may call it love, Zen love, between those two Chinese men. Their love, like all true love, is not between persons, but between persons and something else. I love you, for you love what I love, and in this sense only is the romantic assertion true, that real love cannot be un­ requited. Sepp6 first visited Enkan (Yenkuan)塩 官 ， then T6su (Toutsu)投 子 ， three times, and T6zan nine times，with­ out result, and at last asked Tokusan， “Is it possible for me too to share, with the patriarchs, in the Supreme Teaching?” Tokusan struck him with his staff，saying, “What on earth are you talking about?” The next day he asked for an explanation. Tokusan said, 4

should become that monk and go to the Nehando4, and then you would get something.” Seppo went off with­ out a word. Zen is above morality, but morality is not below Zen. Seppd’s relating the incident shows he felt uneasy about it. Punishing, teaching, training, such things almost always give tis this same uneasy feeling. When we think of Bokuju’s breaking Ummon’s leg, Nansen’s killing the cat, (the 15th century) Kanzan’s mother throwing him in the river, we get this uneasy feeling. Mere Zen is not enough. It must be intelligent, sensitive, tasteful, courageous, modest, un-inferiority-complicated, non-hysterical, extreme Zen. While Seppo was with Tozan, being in charge of the kitchen, he was boiling the rice. T6zan asked, “How much rice are you cooking today?” uTwo bushels,n re­ plied Seppo. “Will it go round?” asked T6zan. Sepp6 said, “There are some who don’t eat.” Tozan said, “Suppose they suddenly all eat, what then?” Sepp6 had no answer. This suppositious case is a mild way of doubting the goodness of the universe, the benevolent intentions of the Deity. Suppose there is a whirlwind, suppose you die, suppose Buddha had not been born, suppose Christ had not died for us, suppose the universe is annihilated, _ what becomes of (your) religion then? This is the problem in Stevenson^ Faith, Half-faith, and No Faith at A ll, the last of which means religion, morality, Zen. The Old Hover answers by going off with his battle-axe to fight for Odin, who is going to be defeated. In the above story, by saying “Some don’t eat,” Sepp6 may be referring to That which does not eat, which, like Jehovah, it is death even to see. The next episode deals with this. Seppo was saying good-bye to Tozan, who asked him, “Where are you off to?” Sepp6 answered, “I’m going back to Reichu.>, “At that time, what road did you

4. See page 85. 46 Seppo come by?” “By Hienrei.” “And by what road “are you going back?” “The same road,，，Sepp6 said. <

He shewed me a little thing, the quantity of an hazel-nut, in the palm of my hand; and it was as round as a ball. I looked thereupon with the eye of my understanding, and thought: What may this be? And it was answered generally thus: It is all that is made. I marvelled how it might last, for me thought it might suddenly have fallen to naught for littleness. And I was answered in my understanding: It lasteth, and ever shall, for that God loveth it. And so All-thing hath the Being by the love of God. When we put these two passages side by side, we see that the differences between them are far greater than the obvious similarity. But the point to remember is 48 Seppo that we need both, and not one more than the other. In this sense, and in no other sense, two different things are one thing; a Chinese Zen man and an English Christian woman are indistinguishable; the great universe and a nut or grain of rice are identical. A monk brought up the statement by Seppo to Kokyu (Huch‘iu> 虎丘， died 1136, a disciple of Engo. Kokyu answered, “In one furrow of earth there are three snakes, and nine mice.” The monk said he would like Kokyu to explain once more. Kokyu said, “It’s not easy to describe the sea with the mouth.” As Seppo had expressed the identity of opposites (large equals small), Kokyu expresses the ordinariness, the factuality of things, and then says, “I give up !” A monk asked Seppd, “What is the Dharmakaya?” Sepp6 answered, “Karma arises from the mouth, I know, but must you chew a shit-stick?” This is a very violent, but not too violent way of telling people that their interest in religious matters is pretended, is argumentative, or escapist, or halluci­ natory, or perverted, in a word, is not religions. Seppo says, truly enough, that such questions are nauseating and odious. “The Dharmakaya, the Essence of Being, is divided into unity,総 ， and diversity,別 ， noumenal absolute and phenomenal activities.” All this kind of thing makes a healthy person feel sick. A monk asked Sepp6, “Is the Zen teaching and the Buddhist teaching the same, or different?” “The voice of the thunder is not heard within the room,” answered Seppo. Zen is the religion of nature; Buddhism is the Ten This and Five That, the dividing and subdividing of truth. Amid all this circumlocution and chattering, the simplicity of truth, its materiality, its thusness, is lost to ear and eye and nose. A monk came and bowed to Seppo. He hit him five times. Tlae monk said, “What did I do wrong?” Sepp5 hit him another five times. “Why was this man born blind?，， The monk was Christ 49 struck five times for having committed the sin of being born (blind). He was then struck five times for (blindly) asking a foolish question. Christ answers, “That the glory of God may be manifest,” and healed him. Seppo has (we may hope at least) the same in­ tention. Both Christ and Seppo are also committing sin, in trying to interfere with the course of nature. When we know this, and beat or are beaten, there is ho sin. Chapter VII

SEPPO’S DISCIPLES I

When Gensha was young, his father was a fisherman, and being already an old man, one night fell from the boat into the water. Gensha tried to save him with an oar, and at this moment saw the moon reflected in the water. He exclaimed, “I remember how the sages of old said that all things are like the moon in the water. If my father had lived, he would have only increased the pains of the Hell he would be reborn in. Instead, I will cut off my human relations and become a priest and thus fulfil my filial duties.” Gensha found a teacher and took the vows, and the next night his father came to him gratefully in a dream, and said, “My son has become a priest, and I have been born in the Heavens, so I have come to thank him.” Gensha entered the priesthood at the age of thirty. He studied first under R eisM ,霊 州 ， then under D6gen (Taohsiian)道 玄 . He and Seppo were fellow-disciples, but Gensha regarded Seppo as his teacher, whom he succeeded, and then taught Zen for thirty years. He had about eight hundred disciples, of whom thirteen attained enlighten­ ment. When Gensha was still only one monk among the rest, a fellow monk K6 (K u a n g )光 ， said to him, “If you can understand what Zen is, HI eat my hat !,n After Gensha became a master, he sent a letter to Ko, saying, “How did the hat taste?” K6 did not reply. The relation between Gensha and Ko was all that it should be. The enlightenment of Gensha seemed unlikely, but it happened. Gensha did not consider K6，s 1

1. What he actually said was, “I’ll make an Iron boat and sail away over the sea in it.M Gensha 51

feelings but continued the conversation of many years ago. Ko did not apologise, for Nature never apologises, neither did he congratulate Gensha on the inevitable. He was gracefully silent. It is interesting to note that just as in Christianity saints never claim to perform the miracles attributed to them by others (and perhaps even believed in themselves), so people never say (tI am enlightened.” Christ declared that only God is good. Gensha’s indirectness is thus one more example of the fact that good manners is the ultimate test of Zen or anything else. A monk asked Gensha, “The old masters, when they raised the gavel or lifted up the mosquito brush,— did they thus bring out the essence of Zen?” “They did not,” said Gensha. The monk then asked, “What was the meaning of their actions?” Gensha raised his mosquito brush. The monk asked, “What is the essence of Zen?” Gensha said, ‘When you are enlightened you will know.” Have all men the Buddha Nature? What is the Bud­ dha nature? The Buddha nature is to know (poten­ tially, subconsciously, in practice) that we have the Buddha nature, to know too when we ask questions, that they are foolish, and the answers to them more so. This ^knowing^ is not that something is known; some­ thing is always about to be known. We are eternally just going to have the Buddha nature. We haven’t exactly not got it, but not exactly have it. To go back to the original question: have all men the Buddha nature? We may ask a second question, a question which is more congruent with the first than most people suspect: have all men a sense of poetry, a sense of humour? If we answer yes, we look like fools; if no, ill-natured. Gensha answers, “If and when.” The Christian religion says that some cannot be saved, either by the will of God (Calvinism) or by their own. One day Seppo and Gensha were mending a fence together, and Gensha asked, “What is the meaning of Daruma’s coming from the West?” Seppo shook the 52 Seppo's Disciples 1 fence. Gensha said, “Why do you go to such a trouble about it?” Sepp6 said, “How about you?” Gensha said, “Pass me the basket.” To ask about the essence of Zen, that is the meaning of life, while working is the best time for asking, for it shows just how closely wedded, that is, undivorced, our thought and activity are. Seppo shook the fence he was mending, but this had something forced and non-natural in it. “Pass the basket, and let’s go on with our work/，一 this is the very coming of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ. One day while Gensha was thinking, he heard the voice of a swallow, and said, “How well it has explained the Buddhist Truth, speaking profoundly of the Real Nature of Things V} and came down from his seat. Afterwards a monk, wishing to get some profit from his words, said to Gensha, “I didn’t understand what you meant.” Gensha retorted, “Be off with you ! How can anyone trust you !’’ I have been asked many questions in my life about poetry, religion, life, and I have given precisely the same number of answers, but I have never, I repeat, never, satisfied a single interlocutor. Why was this? Because all questioning is a way of avoiding the real answer, which, as Zen tells us, is really known already. Every man is enlightened, but wishes he wasn’t. Every man knows he must love his enemies, and sell all he has and give to the poor, but he doesn’t wish to know it,—so he asks questions. Gensha^ reply to the ques­ tioner is too kind; he should just say, uLiar Vf Gensha was one day eating cakes with General I (Wei) 韋 . The general said, “What is that which we use every day, but don’t know it?” Gensha picked up a cake and said, “Have one !，， The general took it and ate it, and then repeated his question. Gensha said, “We use it every day, but we don，t know it.，， This anecdote is very similar to the former one. Gensha answers the real question, which is asked by the general’s stomach, bowels of cleverness. The Jewish Rakan 53 answer was, “Underneath are the everlasting arms,” but people then gabble about anthropomorphism, or worse still about comparative religion. One great ad­ vantage of the Zen bun-eating answer to all theological questions is that you can hardly go to war about it. Perhaps this is the Zen way of abolishing war, the generals, and, still more dangerous, the privates ! One day Gensha said, “In the deep mountains, and inaccessible peaks where for a thousand years, for ten thousand years no man has never trod,—can we find Buddhism there or not? If you say. yes, what kind of Buddhism is it? And if you say no, then Buddhism is not universal.” This is indeed a dilemma, perhaps the dilemma. No, is the common-sense answer. Yes, is the pantheistic, and the (false) Zen answer. The only reply we can give is the opposite to that expected, and the opposite to the one we gave the day before. But to say, like Buddha, that such questions are not conducive to the good life, and should not be asked,—this is untrue. They must be asked, vehemently, and answered, vehemently. That is why Gensha asked his question. monk asked Gensha, “The Supreme Doctrine,- I there any explanation of it recently?” Gensha said, _l____ “We don’t hear such a thing often.” ' This grim understatement nullifies all the books on Zen that ever were or will be written. Zen is how things are said, or heard, but also how they are not said, and “those unheard are sweeter.” To talk with Zen is not uncommon, and talking about Zen is more common than it should be, but to talk with Zen about Zen,—it is the rarest thing in the world. Rakan (L oh a n )羅 漢 ，867-928, entered the temple in his childhood, became a monk, and studied under Ungo, Seppo, and other masters; finally he went to Gensha, by whom he was enlightened, and whom he succeeded. He is more famous for his own successor, Hogen, than for himself. The few anecdotes told of him seem to suggest a 54 Seppo's Disciples 1 rather morose disposition (There are several Rakans, this is Keichin (K ueich§n)桂 琛 ）. A monk said to him, uWhat sort of traditional teach­ ing has Rakan?M Rakan answered, uFind out by look- ing at my outside and inside!” Does a man do that when we are not looking at him? Does he do this because we are looking at him? How did Chrises fart smell? What would Buddha do if a crocodile caught him by the toe? Rakan, seeing a monk approach, raised his hair- duster. The monk made an obeisance. Rakan said, “What did you make a bow to?” The monk said, “To you, out of gratitude.” Rakan struck him, and snarled, “You say you bowed to me when you saw me raise my hair-duster, why don^ you thank me every day when you see me sweep the ground or the floor?” We should say “thank you,” never, or always; not sometimes. This is the life of Zen, the democracy of Zen, the modesty of nature. Ankoku (Ankuo)安 国 ， a disciple of Sepp6, continued Seppo's teaching ways. His dates are unknown. The anecdotes concerning him are not very interesting, with the exception of the following, which is so because of its literary connections. A monk asked Ankoku, “What is the matter of the tip of a single hair?” Ankoku raised his surplice. But the monk said, “I beg you to explain it to m e!’’ Ankoku said, “Do not shed tears holding the jade to your bosom ! Tomorrow morning present it once more to the King of S o ,楚 ！” “The tip of a single hair” comes from the saying, “At the top of the tip of one hair the universe is determined,w 一 毛 頭 上 安 乾 坤 ， meaning that the whole universe rests on the tip of a hair. In Zen this is to be grasped as eliminating the idea of large and small, inside and out­ side, now and then, this and that. Ankoku raised his kesa, as transcending both the one hair and the universe. The monk could not or would attend to this, and asked for a non-Zen answer, which Ankoku kindly gave him. What he said refers to a story in the writings of Han- Kuzan 55 feitzu 韓非子， Book IV, 13, The Difficulty of Pienho. A man of Chu, called Pienho, found an uncut jade in the Chu Mountains. He took it home and presented it to the Emperor Wu. The Emperor asked a jeweller to assess it. “It is just an ordinary stone,” announced the jewel- ler. The Emperor, believing Pienho to be a liar, ordered his left foot to be cut off. When the Emperor Wu died, and Wen ascended the throne, Pienho again pre­ sented it to the Emperor, who also asked a jeweller to give his opinion of it. Again he said, “Just a stone.” The Emperor, regarding Pienho as a liar, ordered his right foot to be cut off. King Wen died, and Chang became Emperor. Pienho, carrying the jade in his arms, went to the foot of the So ( 楚 ， or Ching荆 ,） Mountains and wept there for three days and three nights until all his tears were cried away, and he wept blood. On hearing this, the Emperor sent officers to find out the reason, saying, “In this world such people are many; why are you weeping so bitterly?” Pienho said, “I am not grieving about the loss of my feet; but because the jade was called a stone, and because an upright man was called dishonest. That’s why I am grieving.” The Emperor told a jeweller to polish the jade, and it was found out to be so, and was named “The Jade of Pienho.” Ankoku told the monk not to behave like Pienho and be passive, but to be himself the tip of a hair, the universe. Taigen (T*aiyiian) who preached on the Nirvana Sutra, was laughed at by a Zen monk for his pains, but his anecdotes are not interesting or vivid. That is why, perhaps, his dates are unknown. Kuzan (Kushan) 鼓山， is better, though his dates are also unknown. He became a priest at the age of fourteen, visited many masters of Zen and was finally enlightened by Seppo. When Kuzan went first to Seppo, he had hardly enter­ ed the gate when Seppo pushed him over and said, “What’s this !” and Kuzan was immediately enlightened. Forgetting himself, he just lifted up his hands and danced around. Sepp6 said, “Are you behaving ration­ 56 Seppdfs Disciples I ally?^ Kuzan said, uWhat has this to do with ra­ tionality ?n Seppo stroked his back, and confirmed his enlightenment. One day Hofuku (P aofu )保福， a fellow-discipl? with Kuzan, was talking together with another monk, in the Tea Hall. Seeing this, Kuzan said, “Don’t weave sub­ tleties and complications, 葛藤！” Hofuku said, “We’re not. We are making Buddhism clearer, see?” Kuzan made as if to strike him. “Where am I wrong?” asked Hofuku. Kuzan gave him a blow. Buddhism, that is, Zen, is not to be talked about, written about, read about. Each act, each thought, each emotion is to be “performed” with the whole and un­ divided mind-body. That is all. If this is done, we may talk about Zen. A monk asked Kuzan, “What is the Great Principle of Buddhism?” Kuzan answered, “When the golden crow appears for a moment, there is not a cloud for ten thousand leagues.” The golden crow, which has three legs, is the sun. When the sun just peeps out, the world is changed. But the sun is not a symbol of Buddhism or enlightenment. When we really see the sunlight we are enlightened. When we really understand Buddhism we are en- sunned. Chapter VIII

SEPPO^ DISCIPLES II

Another disciple of Seppo, Chokei (Ch^ngch^ng) 長慶， had himself many disciples, fifteen hundred, twenty six being enlightened under him. He died in 932 aged seventy nine. When he became enlightened, on rolling up a screen, he composed a famous verse，偈 .

也大差也大差，捲起簾來見天下， 有人問我解何宗，拈起拂子驀口打。

What a difference ! What a difference ! Raise the blind, and see the world ! If someone asks me to tell him what my religion is I raise my hossu and strike his mouth.

As noted before, such questions particularly are anathema. “What do you believe?” indeed ! Like Walt Whitman, I believe everything and everybody. The learned in his blindness bows down to theology and philosophy. On the whole the anecdotes concerning Chokei are interestingly short or uninterestingly long. An ex­ ample of the former. A monk asked Ch6kei, “How can we attain to a state without doubt?” Chokei stretched out his arms. To believe it because it is true, to believe it because it is impossible, to believe it for any reason, to believe it for no reason,—all are wrong. We are to believe, that is all. Believe any nonsense? No, believe the sense of the senses (even if they sometimes deceive you), believe everything that comes before thought. How about if you see a ghost? Go up and shake it by the hand, or 53 Sepp6fs Disciples 11 kick it on the shins. If you make a mistake? Well, that，s fun,—I mean fun to the universe, though it may not be exactly fun to you, at the time. When we move our body, this is faith. Doubt whether we can walk or not is physical and spiritual malady. And belief in the power to move comes before the movement. Further, if Chokei holds out both hands to illustrate the state of no doubt, this is not Zen; he also wishes to illustrate it. Chokei said to his monks, uIf I expounded the essence of our religion, you should shut the door of the Hall, because were the Law completely explained, there would be no more people.” At that time there was a monk who said, “I’m not worried about there being no people, I ask you to explain the Law to the bitter end V1 Chokei said, uShall I entrust you with the heart of the matter?” If everyone were enlightened, there would be no com­ mon or garden human beings. All would be Buddhas or bodhisattvas. Strictly speaking, the impossibility of this is due to the incompetence of the Zen masters. The customer is never wrong. One day Chokei went to the Hall where all the monks were assembled. He called out one monk and told the congregation to bow to him. He then said, “What’s so fine about this monk that I should have you bow to him?” The monks were silent. It is said that the Empress Komyo washed a leper, in order to demonstrate the spirit of the Mahayana. We might think of this kind of thing as the solution of the problem of war and all the rest of them down to matrimonial squabbles, but it is not so. People are quite capable of bowing down to each other, and then mowing down each other. A monk asked, “What is the True Eye of the Law?” Ch6kei said, “I have a favour to ask of you: don’t throw sand around !’’ People ask why and how as an excuse for not doing what they know they should do. In some ways illu­ Choke% 59

sion, as Nietzsche said, is life-giving, and we may tell a lie until it becomes the truth, but such truths are not fundamental. We have to learn to look with the eye, and the only way is to keep on looking, looking at a snake until it ceases to be repulsive, looking at a naked woman until she ceases to be attractive, and until snakes and women become supremely interesting. Chdkei went into the monks’ Hall and showed them a piece of congratulatory calligraphy, and said to them, ‘*If you see it, you don’t see it; do you see it?” The monks did not utter a word. When my little dog keeps on barking round the table for still more tid-bits, if I am in a good condition, physically and spiritually, I don’t hear him, but more or less mechanically give him another bit of cake. If my condition is not good, I can hear him bark, with exasperation, and give him another bit of cake con­ sciously, and resentfully. Chokei puts the monks on the spot, however. If they say, “We don’t see it,” he will laugh at their cunning. If they say, ‘*We see it,” he will ask, “Is this the ordinary seeing, or the Zen seeing?” And whichever they choose, he will ask, “What is the difference between them?” Jizo, Chokei, and Hofuku, entering their town, went to see some screens on which peonies were painted. Hofuku said, “A fine group of peonies !’’ Chokei said, “Don’t get flowers on the brain !” Jiz6 said, “A pity, that clump of peonies !” Hofuku looked at the flowers, and the art with which they were portrayed, and admired both. Chokei was afraid Hofuku would be led away by the life of nature or the rapture of art, and warned him about “flowers of the eye,” 眼花， that is, about being in a flurry, get­ ting hysterical about beauty or goodness or truth; another term is “flowers of illusion,” 幻華， wandering thoughts, judgements of value. Jizo then says that Chokei has spoiled the flowers with his cautionary remarks, and made them stink of Zen. All three are right, and Tighter than the peonies themselves, for Christ 60 Seppo's Disciples 11 is more glorious, as a man, with his toiling to convert people, and spinning words to do so, than the flowers that never do either. We have to go through the three stages: innocently praising the flowers; fearing the power of their beauty; and regretting the fear, in order to go back to the flowers themselves, with renewed courage and enriched innocence. Ky6sei (Chingching)鏡 清 ， dates unknown, was a dis­ ciple of Sepp6, together with Gensha, Ummon, and so on, but he seems to have been an over-subtle kind of teacher. There are many anecdotes concerning him, but the questions are difficult, the answers more so, and if we can understand both, neither is interesting. Ky6sei asked a monk, “Where have you been recent- ly?” “Three Peaks,” replied the monk. “And where did you spend the summer seclusion?” “Five Peaks.” “I’ll give you thirty strokes !” said Ky6sei. “What did I do wrong?” asked the monk. “You came from one temple, and went to another,” said Ky6sei. “Three Peaks” and “Five Peaks” are non-existent places (temples). The monk is not serious. He just does the round of famous temples and masters without a violent desire for enlightenment. The Zen master cannot be deceived as to the degree of zeal of the learner-monk. A monk said to Kyosei, UI am pecking inside the shell, 哮 ；I ask you to peck outside,琢 Ky6sei said, “Are you in a state of active readiness,活 ， or not?” The monk said, **If I were not, people would despise me, 恠 笑 Kydsei said, “You are still wallowing in the grass V9 The chick pecking inside the shell, and the mother hen pecking outside so that the chick should be born, is an apt symbol of the relation of teacher and pupil, 学人， in regard to the enlightenment of the latter. Kyosei seems to have been famous for his ability in this respect. The monk imagined that his enlighten­ ment was imminent. Kyosei told him that far from about to reach the summit he was still in the grasses Kydsei 61

at the foot of the Mountain of Purgatory. To change the metaphor, every man, however great, or rather, in proportion as he is great, stands on the shoulders of his predecessors. In this respect Zen has an oriental sameness and monotony, for everyone^ satori is sup­ posed to be (more or less) the same, whereas in the West, as Spengler says, to understand Shakespeare we must surpass Shakespeare. When Kyosei^ master, Ummon, was asked, “What is this pecking within and without?” he answered with one of his famous laconisms, “Echo•” Ky6sei asked a monk where he had come from. “From Shakky6,,> he said. <4How is your Self?'* asked Kyosei. “I have left Shakky6,” he said. “Don’t I know you’re not at Shakkyo? I’m asking about your S elf!” said Kyosei. The monk said, “Why don’t you accept what I say?” Kyosei struck him. The monk said， “I have something more to say.” Kydsei said, “I’ll just beat you ! Your words must be done !” Speech is not silver, and silence is not golden. Speech and silence may be gold, silver, or lead. Speech, when it is the whole activity, is better than action, and far superior to any kind of silence. A monk said to Ky6sei, “What is the meaning of ‘The Bhagavat in the ten directions is one road to Nirvana’？ ” Kydsei said, “In a house, there are not two masters.” The ten directions are the eight points of the compass and the nadir and the zenith, meaning the whole universe. Bhagavat, or Bhagavan is an epithet of the Buddha, meaning “excellent.” The Buddhistic meaning of the phrase, which comes in the Surangama Sutra, 愣厳経， chapter five, is that salvation is possible in every place. Kyosei^ answer gives the complementary truth, that reality is a unity. On the one hand, every sound is the voice of the Law; on the other, only Bach’s music is the voice of God. Both statements are equally and instantaneously true. Hofuku (P a o fu )保 福 ， another of Seppd’s disciples, died in 928. At the age of fifteen he was already with 62 Seppd*s Disciples II Seppo. Soon after, he visited the famous masters of China, but came back to Seppo. A temple was built for him, and he could not decline the mastership. His disciples were never less than seven hundred. The anecdotes show him to have been a lively and original character. He said one day to his monks, “The supreme thing is like the spark from a struck flint, a flash of lightning; whether you grasp it or not, you cannot avoid becom­ ing a corpse and losing your life.,> A certain monk asked, “If a man really grasps it, will he also lose his life, or not?” Hofuku said, “Leaving aside the previous question, have you yourself grasped it, or not?” The monk answered, “If I hadn’t grasped it, how could I avoid being laughed at by everybody?” Hofuku said, “Bright fellow ! Bright fellow !” The monk said, “What’s the idea?” Hof uku said, “You’ve had a dip­ perful of urine thrown in your face, and yet you don’t know it stinks !’’ The important thing in Zen, as in humour, and love (at first sight) and poetry (intuition), is speed. If we can always be quicker than (any foolish) thought or emotion, this is to be always in Paradise. Hofuku, to prevent dichotomous thinking, says that whatever you do, however fast or slow you may be, it^ no good any­ way; death and Hell are your portion. The monk then asks, “How about an enlightened man?” Hof uku will not deal with hypothetical cases, and asks, “How about you; are you enlightened or not?>, The monk answers facetiously, but expresses his actual feeling in the mat­ ter; his answer has some Zen, that is, some humour in it, and Hofuku praises him for it. However, when the monk asks him whether he is praising or blaming him, Hofuku says, “Blaming, of course, you conceited booby V9 Hofuku asked a monk, ‘Where have you come from?” “From Ky6sei,” he replied. “And what did you learn there?” asked Hofuku. “I got nothing,拈不出，” said the monk. “How did you manage to do that?” said Hofuku 63 Hofuku. The monk made no answer. To desire nothing, physico-spiritually, to get nothing, to give nothing, this, as Eckhart says, is the true poverty of “Blessed are the poor.” But what a world of dif­ ference there is between nothing and Nothing ! Hofuku asked a monk, “What is your name?” “Hsientsd,歴 沉 ，Everywhere-swampy,” he replied. Ho­ fuku said, uIf you happen to run across a Mr. Dried- up-place,枯 洞 ， what would you do?” “Who is this Mr. Dried-up-place?” asked the monk. “I’m that man said Hofuku. The monk said, “Master, you should not make a fool of people!’’ Hofuku said, “It’s you rather who are making of fool of me Vf The monk, like everyone else, wanted to become rich. Hofuku used the monk’s name to point out to him that he, Hofuku, was as poor as a church mouse, spiritually. The monk thought that Hofuku could not be serious. When Bernard Shaw said a rich man was a thief, the rich man thought he was joking. Hofuku said, “There is a man now passing behind the Buddha Hall, and he knows this is Tom, this is Dick, or this is Harry. There is a man passing before the Buddha Hall. Somehow or other he sees nothing and nobody. Tell me, where is the profit and loss of Bud­ dhism?^ A monk said, “It is because he distinguishes things badly he can’t see.” Hofuku said, “Kwatz!” Then, himself answering, he said, “If this is the Buddha Hall he can’t see.” The monk said, “If it wasn’t the Buddha Hall, he could see all right!’’ Hofuku said, “It is just because of the Buddha Hall that he can see anything.” “Behind the Buddha Hall” means in the vulgar, com­ monplace, unpoetical, irreligious world, where we meet all kinds of people. (ieWe descend to meet，” says Emerson.) “Passing before the Buddha Hall” is the world of Blake and Eckhart, Hanshan and Thoreau, the world of Shakespeare, in which everything is equal, is equally interesting, is infinitely interesting, so that we, so to speak, see nothing, see no particular thing as desirable or unwanted. “Passing before the Buddha 64 Seppo^ Disciples II Hall” is the profit of Buddhism. The monk is terribly matter-of-fact, and thinks only about seeing physical objects, not realising that all things are physico- spiritual. He admits, superstitiously, that there may be something special about the Buddha Hall, but says see­ ing is better than not seeing, discriminating is better than any universality. Hofuku ends, somewhat hope­ lessly, by saying that the Buddha Hall is not anything special. It is because all things have the Buddha nature that all the multifarious differences arise. Variety must have sameness at the back of it, otherwise it could not exist. Hofuku, seeing a monk, struck the (round) outside post of the temple; he then struck the head of the monk, who cried out with pain. Hofuku said, “Why doesn’t the post feel pain?” The monk gave no answer. The answer is; “The question is the same as, ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’ ” In other words, the answer to the question why the post doesn’t feel pain, is, “It does.” “Why doesn’t it cry out, then?” “It does.” “Why don’t I hear it?’’ “You do, but you don’t know you do.” “Why don’t I know?” “Because you are not enlightened.” ‘"Why am I not enlightened?” “Be- cause you are too damn lazy !” ‘*Why. A monk asked Hofuku^ “How can we enter the fire and not be burned, enter the water and not be drown­ ed?” Hofuku said, “If it were water-fire, would you be burned-drowned?” This ingenious answer means that we are scorched to death, or drowned to death, because we distinguish fire and water. We die because we distinguish life and death. When Hofuku was about to die he said to his monks, “For the $ast ten days my vitality has decreased. It is nothing; simply the time has come.” A monk said, “The time has come for you to die,—is that all right? To continue living，一 is that all righ t,是 ？ ” Hofuku an- swered, “It is the W ay,道•” The monk asked, “How can I stop being flustered?” Hofuku said, “It never rains Tosu 65 but it pours.’’1 With this, he sat in the zazen style and passed away. “All right,” 是 ， comes from 垦 ， which means that the s u n , 日， is accurate,正 ， (in its revolution). The Way means, not fate, or the normal course for all human beings, but the Buddha nature, reality, absolute truth. By “One misfortune follows another,” Hofuku means that all our life we are afraid to die, and then, in the end, we have to die. Tosu (T*outsu), mentioned on page 43 as visited by Seppo, went one day to the house of a danapati, in the capital, invited to dinner there. The danapati brought a tray of grass and set it before him. Tosu put both fists on his head. The danapati thereupon brought in the meal. Afterwards, a monk asked him the meaning of this. T6su said, “Kannon Bosatsu.” The offering of grass to Tosu suggested that he was an ox, and he cheerfully admitted it. It is said that an unenlightened priest will be reborn as an ox. The Buddha is called “the king of bulls,” 牛 王 ， in reference perhaps to his name Gautama (go, gaus, a bull). In the ox-herding pictures, the ox is used to mean the monk looking for reality, controlling himself, the ox. In any case, Tosu showed the danapati, a family-patron of Buddhism, that he had no dignity, that he admitted being an ox in some respects, though not in all. Kan- non is well known as taking an infinite variety of forms, a bird, a vase, a willow-branch, a pearl, and so on.

1. The Chinese metaphor i s , 失銭遭罪， “ To lose money is a crime.” In Tang times a man was fined for losing money. The Japanese say, UA bee stings a weeping face/* Chapter IX

HOGEN

H6gen (F a y en )法眼， the founder of the branch of Zen that bears his name, was bom in 885. He became a priest at the age of seven, studied Buddhism and Confucianism, and was good at writing. One day, on his way to the lakes, he was caught by a shower, and sheltered from it in Jizd’s temple. The master of the temple, Keichin1，桂 深 ， who was sitting by the fire­ place, asked him, “Where are you going?” He replied, “Just on an angya1 2, slanting about.” <4What is angyaV' said Keichin. “I don’t know,” said H6gen. “Don’t-know is the most intimate,” said Keichin. They sat down by the fire talking of Joron (Chaolun)3, and when they got to “Heaven and I are of the same Root,” and Jiz64 asked, “Are mountains and rivers and the great earth different from me, or the same?” Shinzan (Chinshan)進山， who was with them, said, “The same•” Jizo held up two fingers, and, looking at them earnestly, said there were two, and then went out. It had now cleared up out­ side, and Jizo accompanied them to the gate. On the way, in the garden there was a stone, and pointing to it Jizo asked a question. “It is said that in the three worlds all is mind; is this stone in the mind, or outside it?” H6gen answered, “Inside it.” Jiz6 said, “You people on a pilgrimage (angya)f why do you think that the stone is in your minds?” Hogen was at a loss and

1. This is Rakan, that is, Jizo. 2. The wandering of a Zen monk from master to master in search of enlightenment. 3. A treatise on Buddhism, by the 4th century Sengchao. 4. That is, Keichin，Rakan. Echo 67 could find no answer. So he undid his bundle, and asked Jizo to help him resolve the problem. After a month, he explained his view of the philosophy of Buddhism, but Jiz6 said, “Buddhism is not philosophy.” Hogen then said, UI have now got to the point of eschew­ ing all words and giving up all philosophy.>, Jizo said, “If you now explain Buddhism, everything is accom­ plished•” At this, Hogen was profoundly enlightened. Buddhism, that is, Zen, is not philosophy, but it is not no-philosophy. When we know that silence is golden, then we must speak, and our speech will be super- golden. H6gen’s enlightenment was like that of the Sixth Patriarch, intellectual in nature, perhaps because they were both gentle and mild, not passionate or ambitious. Later, Hogen took over a temple at Rinsen, and it is said that those who gathered around him were more than ten thousand. His school was most prosperous and his disciples never less than five hundred. In 958 he became ill, and died at the age of fifty four. The disciples who became enlightened numbered forty three. Besides a collection of his sayings, he is remembered for his JwJcfciron,十 規論. A monk Ech6 (Huichao)惠超， asked H6gen, “What is the Buddha?” H6gen said, “You are Ech6 !” The monk came to a realisation. Suppose Hogen had said, “You are the Buddha!’’ This would be as true as any other statement, according to the meaning. The question is, who and what are “you”，and, who and what is the Buddha? Hogen must adapt himself to the monk’s (proleptic) experience of himself, another Buddha, and says, “You are Echd !’’ “You” meant the Buddha, and “Ech6” meant the Bud­ dha, to Ech6 at that moment. Hakuyd (Paiyang)白楊， was asked by H6gen “Where is the dwelling place of the Buddha?” Haktiyo an­ swered, <4No fixed place.^ Hogen objected, 4

Gazing at a mountain, it is not a mountain; Gazing at the waters, why should we separate them from other things? Mountains and great waters, and the whole earth, These are all the one wheel of the moon.

A monk asked Hogen, **What is eternity?“It is at this very moment,” he replied. This is too direct, too philosophical for Zen, for truth. When it is so stated we must deny it, and say that time can exist, meaninglessly, without eternity, and eternity, meaninglessly without time. Time is eternity only if you make it so. One day Hogen pointed to some bamboos, and said to a monk, “Do you see them?” “I see them,” replied the monk. aDo they come to the eye, or does the eye go to them?” asked H6gen. “I have no idea at all,” said the monk. Hogen gave up, and went away. The real point is not in whether beauty is in the Sogen 69

object or in the eye of the beholder. It is in whether you really behold or not, and no amount of philosophy will make a man really see bamboos ifhedoesn’t. There is a significant gap between the poetical view of bamboos and the Zen view. The Zen seeing of bamboos is dependent upon self-lessness and bamboo-lessness. The self and the bamboos are the same. The poetical view depends upon whether you see into the “life” of the bamboos or not, in other words, it depends upon what sort of a self you have. According to Buddhism (and Zen follows it) all selves are the same, but this is not true in fact, only in theory, with the result that a poet, that is, a poet like Wordsworth, or better still, Clare, will see bamboos that Zen cannot reveal. Whether H6gen could see the bamboos “really,’7 that is，poetically, whether he could listen to Bach musically and weep emotionless tears,—that is a question. In any case Hogen^ method of Zen teaching here is at fault. A monk asked Hogen, uWhat is a drop of water from S6gen (Ts‘aoyiian)曹源？ ’’ H6gen answered “It is a drop of water from Sogen !,? Once Sho (Shao) IS , the Na­ tional Teacher, heard this saying, and was suddenly enlightened. Sogen is Sokei, the place where the Sixth Patriarch taught. The drop of water is the truth revealed to and by him. Hogen was a master of this repetition of the question so as to be a perfect answer to it. For Hogen, the question was answered in the asking of it. Doubt and belief were one, not two things, and deep. The danger here lies in the very transcendence, which begins in the use of water as a symbol. The question is the answer, and the answer is the question, that is true, but more important still is that Christ is a door, and a door (if you go through it properly) is Christ. The next anecdote is better. H6gen asked H6shi Ch6r6,宝資長老， “An ancient man said that the Light passes everywhere through moun­ tains and rivers, without obstruction. What is this Light which penetrates into every place?” H6shi replied, “It 70 Hogen is the voice of fulling the damask cloth among the eastern rice-fields.” The “ancient man” is a monk, Chdsetsu,張拙，who asked Sekiso concerning this saying. This again comes in the 39th Case of the Mumonkan, where Ummon in­ terrupts a monk, quoting this saying, and asks, uls not this by the genius Ch6setsu?” The thusness of things pervades the universe, like light, like the sun that shines upon the just and upon the unjust. Give me another example, says Hogen. Hoshi answers in the Chinese poetical style. The sound of the fulling block on an autumn evening heard from some distance away, —this is that sound that ensoundeneth every man that cometh into the world. Once Hogen was teaching the monks before the morn­ ing meal. He pointed to the bamboo blinds. Two monks came out and rolled them up. “One wins, the other loses !” was his comment. Comparisons are odious, but odiousness is one of the qualities—almost the chief quality—of the universe. Zen means not choosing, not praising or blaming, not liking or loathing,—so they say. But real Zen means choosing, praising, blaming, liking, loathing,—humorous­ ly. One wins, and rejoices, another loses and weeps. We, as Paul says, rejoice with him that rejoices, and weep with him that weeps; but don’t take either too seriously. A monk said to H6gen, “There is a saying, ‘One lamp destroys a room’s hundred year’s darkness’； what is this light?^ Hogen exclaimed, 4

5. See Vol. I, page 100. Goku 73 suppose, a transcendental one. All human beings are prodigal sons who have fallen into sophistication and vulgarity. H6gen says, “How will you receive this one who is as if arisen from the dead?” The monk says, piously, U1 have no desires, no possessions, no theories, no moral principles.” Hogen says, uMan doth not live by Zen (that is, ‘Every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God’） alone.” One day Hogen told a monk to fetch some earth to add to that in a lotus-pot. He asked him, “Did you get the earth from the East of the bridge, or the West of the bridge?” “From the East of the bridge,” r印 lied the monk. Hogen asked, (tls this the truth, or is it delu- sion?” We are not told the monk’s answer. How shall we answer it ourselves. Is the world real, or unreal? The answer is Yes. Is there such a thing as East and West in finite space? You know only if you have been in infinite space, which does not mean in a space-rocket. Earth is very real, especially when you get a little bit in your eye. But Hamlet speaks of “the mind’s eye.” Does not the mind create the eye and the earth in it? “Nothing is but thinking makes it so.” Wordsworth’s “imagination” solves the question, for it is the power to create what already exists. One day, Hogen was by the fire, and, lifting up an incense spoon said to GokQ，（Wuk‘u n g )悟空，“Don’t call this an incense spoon; what will you call it?” Goku said, “An incense spoon.” Hogen rejected his answer. It look Goku more than twenty days to grasp why. This kind of problem, “Don’t call it a —; what do you call it?” is to me the most difficult of all. Goku, was once asked by a monk, “What is the Origin,本源， of all the Buddhas?” He answered,

HOGEN’S DISCIPLES

The style of the Hogen Sect was said to be like fight­ ing with sharp swords; the meaning of the words fitted exactly the meaning of the experiences. The method of teaching was not so stern and strict as that of the Rinzai Sect. They taught slowly, as if treating in­ valids, and when the final stage was reached, the coup de grace was delivered cleverly. Engo said of this sect, “Hearing the sound, they understood the way. Seeing the form they clarified the mind. A sharp point is hid­ den in their verses, and there is an echo in the sound of the words.” Of the Hogen Sect, besides the founder, the two most famous members were Tendai and Eimyo. Tendai Tokushd CT‘ient‘ai T会sh ao)天合徳韶， was enlightened by Hogen. Later he went to Mount Tendai, from which he got his name. He became the teacher of the Emperor Chui, and die in 972 at the age of eighty two. His chief disciple was Eimy6 (Y ungm ing)永明， whose disciples were said to be always more than two thousand. He read and wrote an enormous quantity of books, and was also favoured by the Emperor. Priests came from Korea to learn from him. He died in 975 at the age of seventy two. For a time the Sect of Hogen was thus very prosperous, but soon fell into decay. The apparent reason for this is a very interesting one. The Hogen Sect was not pure Zen, but mixed with the Nembutsu. They studied also the Hokke, Kegon, Shuryogon, and Engaku Sutras. They wished, particularly Tendai, to be wide and inclusive. It is narrowness, however, that 76 Hogen's Disciples ensures the permanence of sects and doctrines. The reason for this is that human nature can be deep, but if it is wide it is always shallow, in the sense that there must be a dispersion of energy. Dispersion is decay. Ummon’s Zen is a sort of electric spark, and not suitable to the slow-but-sure, plodding kind of monk. Famous for his “gate of one letter,” 一字關， not many monks passed through it, if we take the anecdotes as evidence. When for example Ummon was asked about the sword that cuts a hair dropped on it, that is, Zen, he answered “Tsu !，，稱 ，which is said1 to be the sound of a knife cutting into flesh. This does not “mean，， something. It is the state of mind of Ummon, which he wants to communicate to the monk, the sensitivity to the danger and pain of life, a sensitivity which Zen should not dull. Another example was when Ummon was asked, “What is the True Dharma，Eye?” Ummon answered, “Universal !’，普 ，which does not mean, as in Buddhism, that the Buddha-eye penetrates all things, but that the Buddha eye is everywhere, seeing itself. When asked, “What is the Way?” he answered “Go away!’’ 去 ，which means, “Go and walk on i t ! Don’t stand there asking questions about it!’’ Tendai(T‘ient‘ai)天合， 891-972, became a priest at the age of fifteen. It is said that he visited fifty six masters, and at last came to Hogen, and became enlightened. He was favoured by the Emperor, and was instrumental in bringing back to China, from Korea, books that had been scattered under the persecutions of Buddhism at the end of the Tang Dynasty. His enlightened disciples were said to be forty nine, among whom Eimyo Enju was the greatest. A verse by Tendai:

The peak of Tunghsuan Is not a human being; Outside the mind, not a thing exists;

1. The dictionary gives “ rotten meat,” which would be an abusive appreciation of the sword. Eirnyo 77

The green mountains fill the eye.

The first two lines are too positive, and the third may be changed to “Inside the mind also not a thing exists.” The anecdotes concerning Tendai are not very interest­ ing. Eimyd (Yungming)永明，904-975, was a Buddhist from his childhood, but entered the priesthood at the age of twenty eight. He became the disciple of Suigan, but was enlightened by Tendai. After he became master of the big temple of Eimyo, his disciples always numbered more than two thousand. He read and wrote much, and studied also the Nembutsu Sect. A monk said to Eimyo, UI have been with you a long time, but I have yet to grasp your way of looking at things.” Eimy6 said, “Understand that you don’t under- stand l" The monk said, “If I don’t understand, how can I understand anything?” Eimyo replied, “The womb of a cow gives birth to an elephant, and the blue sea produces yellow dust.” Eimy6’s intention is clearly to make the ununder­ standing monk understand less. When we feel an ex­ hilaration in the non-understanding we are close to Zen. Eimyo was asked by a monk, “What is the Great Round Mirror?” Eimyo answered, UA broken crock/* This comes from the phrase, “Within the bright mir­ ror there is not a hair’s breadth of difference,” 大円鏡 裏不隔糸毫， that is, in the Buddhist wisdom there is not the slightest separation between this and that, mine and yours. Thus the monk’s question is, “What is the essence of Buddhism?” or, “What is Zen?” The answer is not as destructive and nihilistic as it looks. Oscar Wilde said that art was useless, but he also thought it to be the greatest thing, the only thing, in the world. Of Rakan (Lohan), Shunin, (Shoujen)守 仁 ， who was the disciple of Hogen (not the Rakan who was the dis­ ciple of Gensha) nothing seems to be known. He was asked by a monk, ‘^What is the meaning of Daruma’s coming from the West?” Rakan said, “What do you 78 Hdgen9s Disciples mean by ‘the meaning of Daruma’s coming from the West，？ ，， The monk said, “Has ‘Daruma’s coming from the West， no meaning?” Rakan said, “You are just talking with your mouth.” Chapter XI

YAKUSAN TO SEKISO

Y a kusa n (Yiiehshan)薬山，becam e a p rie s t a t th e age o f seventeen; he w as enlightened u n d e r S e k ito . H is d iscip le s w e re m a n y , and h is sch oo l w as prosperous. H e d ie d in 834 A.D. a t th e age o f e ig h ty fo u r. O ne o f th e b e s t-k n o w n anecdotes (a lth o u g h in one source i t is a ttrib u te d to B aso,) is th e fo llo w in g . Y a kusa n asked a m o n k , “ W h e re h a v e y o u com e fro m ? ” “ F ro m th e S o u th e rn L a k e ,” re p lie d th e m o n k , “ Has th e la k e o v e rflo w e d its b a n ks? ” asked Y a ku sa n . “ N o t y e t,” a nsw ere d th e m o n k . T h e n Y a k u s a n said, “ So m uch ra in , and th e la k e n o t y e t f u ll? ” B u t th e m o n k w as s ile n t. T h is s to ry has a k in d o f stage iro n y , tw o p e o p le ta lk ­ in g a t cross-purposes. Y a ku sa n is n o t in te re s te d in th e ra in and th e la k e , b u t in th e m o n k . T h e m o n k is in te re s te d in th e r a in and th e la k e , b u t n o t in Y a ku sa n . In a sense, b o th a re w ro n g , th e m o n k fo r h is o v e r- sim plicity, and Y a k u s a n fo r over-profundity, and n o t jo ltin g th e m o n k o u t o f h is meteorological complacency. A m o rik asked Y a ku sa n , “ D id th e essence o f B u d d h is m e x is t b e fo re D a ru m a cam e?” “Itd id ,” saidYakusan. “ T hen w h y d id he com e, i f i t a lre a d y e x is te d ? ” “ H e came,” sa id Y a ku sa n , “ ju s t because i t w as h e re a lre a d y .” T h is Alice in Wonderland conversation is a re m a rk ­ a ble escape fro m th e s c ie n tific w o rld o f cause and e ffe c t. F iv e c e n tu rie s b e fo re D a ru m a cam e to C h in a , C h ris t had d ie d to save s in n e rs w h o w e re a lre a d y saved b y th e e te rn a l lo v e o f G od. A n o th e r s to ry illustrating Y a k u s a n ’s w it and e n e rg y. Y a kusa n h ad n o t ascended th e ro s tru m fo r q u ite a lo n g 80 Yakusan to Sekiso tim e , and one d a y th e s u p e rio r cam e a nd sa id , “ T he congregation o f m o n ks a re th in k in g a b o u t y o u r p re a c h ­ in g a se rm o n .” Y a k u s a n sa id , “ R in g th e b e l l !” T he s u p e rio r banged a w a y a t th e b e ll, and th e m o n ks a ll g a th e re d . B u t Y a ku sa n w e n t b a ck to h is o w n room . T h e s u p e rio r fo llo w e d h im , and sa id , “ T h e M a s te r w as g o in g to g iv e a ta lk , a nd th e m o n ks a re a ll re a d y , w h y d id n ’t y o u say a n y th in g to th e m ? ” Y a k u s a n said, “ T h e re a re s u tra p rie s ts fo r th e su tra s, sa stra p rie s ts fo r th e sa stra s; w h y do y o u q u e s tio n m y goings-on?” P e o p le te ach w h a t th e y can. P e o p le te ach w h a t th e y teach. E v e ry b o d y teaches e v e ry b o d y else. O u r te a ch ­ in g is n o t h o w e v e r w h a t w e o s te n s ib ly te ach . H itle r ta u g h t th e w o rld th a t a m an m a y be to ta lly la c k in g in h u m a n ity and y e t be g re a t. M a n y le c tu re rs on p o e try te ach us th a t p o e try is d e v o id o f v a lu e . K re is le r ta u g h t us th a t violin-playing is a m ix tu re o f s e n ti­ m e n ta lity and acrobatics. Y a ku sa n ta u g h t th e m onks n o t to ask to be ta u g h t. B u d d h a h ad a lre a d y ta u g h t th is , b u t inefficiently. T h e o n ly w a y to te ach n o t te ach ­ in g is r e a lly n o t to teach. Y a ku sa n le a rn e d th is k in d o f th in g fro m S e k ito . One d ay, Y a ku sa n w as d o in g zazen. S e k it6 asked h im , “ W h a t a re y o u d o in g ? ” “ N o t a th in g ,” re p lie d Y akusan. “ A re n ’t y o u s ittin g b la n k ly ? ” sa id S e k it6 . “ I f I w e re s ittin g b la n k ly , I w o u ld be d o in g something,” re to rte d Y a ku sa n . S e k ito said, MTe ll m e, w h a t is th a t y o u are n o t d o in g ? ” Y a ku sa n re p lie d UA th o u sa n d sag^s could n o t a n sw e r th a t q u e s tio n .” Y a k u s a n ^ a n sw e r to h is o ld te a c h e r w as th e p ro p e r one. H e sa id , <4I am le ttin g th e u n iv e rs e do w h a t i t w a n ts to d o .” S e k itd p e rs is te d , “ Is n ，t ‘le ttin g ，d oing something?” “ I t is n o t,” sa id Y a ku sa n . S e k ito said, “ T e ll m e, w h a t is th is ‘le ttin g ? ” ， “ I t c a n ，t be spoken a b o u t, o r a cted a b o u t; th e essence o f greatness is n o t to ta lk a b o u t i t o r a ct a b o u t i t .，， Y a ku sa n w as asked b y G o v e rn o r R i ( L i) “ W h a t are S ila ，D h ya n a , and P ra jn a ? ” Y a k u s a n a n sw e re d , “ T his Ungan 81 poor m o n k has n o t such useless furniture.” R i said, “ D o n ’t be so m y s te rio u s !，’ Y a k u s a n sa id , “ I f y o u w a n t to h a ve w h a t I h a ve , y o u m u s t s it on th e h ig h e s t m o u n ­ ta in , go d o w n to th e b o tto m o f th e deepest sea. Y o u don’t th ro w o ff y o u r b u rd e n s even w h e n y o u go to b ed ; y o u a re b u s y w ith illu s io n s ,渗 漏 S ila is th e p re ce p ts, D h y a n a meditation, P ra jn a w is ­ dom . T h e G o v e rn o r o f a S ta te m u s t be a n sw e re d ru d e ly , e s p e c ia lly w h e n h e asks a b o u t Z en (w h ic h he w o n ’t.) H is g re a t fa u lt is la c k o f tru e a m b itio n , and h e needs encouragement a nd stim ulation, th o u g h unavailing. Y a ku sa n ’s m a n n e r o f d e a th w as o f a p ie ce w ith h is life . W h e n h e w as a b o u t to d ie , h e y e lle d o u t, uThe H a ll’s fa llin g d o w n ! T h e H a ll’s fa llin g d o w n !” T h e m on ks b ro u g h t v a rio u s th in g s and began to p ro p i t u p . Y a ku sa n th re w u p h is h an ds a nd sa id , “ N one o f y o u u n d e rsto o d w h a t I m e a n t!” a nd d ie d . W h a t d id Y a k u s a n m ean? E v e ry th in g is fa llin g d o w n ; e v e ry th in g is r is in g u p . T o p ro p w h a t m u s t f a ll is fo o lis h ; ra th e r, g iv e i t a p ush . W h e n som e fa m o u s w o rk o f a r t o r m o n u m e n t o f c u ltu re is d e s tro y e d , w h e n a m o th is b u r n t in a fla m e ，w h e n fiv e m illio n Je w s a re slaughtered, le t us do w h a t Y a k u s a n d id ,— y e ll, a nd d ie . U n g a n ( Y iin y e n ) 雲 巖 ，w h o d ie d in 841, w as th e d is ­ c ip le o f H y a k u j 6 fo r tw e n ty ye a rs, b u t g o t enlightened u n d e r Y a ku sa n . A m o n g h is d is c ip le s w e re T oza n and Sozan, w h o fo u n d e d th e S oto B ra n c h o f th e Z en S ect. Comparatively fe w anecdotes a re to ld a b o u t U n g a n , and th is suggests som e la c k o f b rillia n c e in h is Z en, th a t is, in h im . One d a y U n g a n w as i l l a nd D 6go ( T a o w u ) 道 吾 ，asked h im a q u e s tio n : “ W h e n y o u a re se p a ra te d fro m y o u r bag-o’-bones, w h e re can I m e e t y o u a g a in ? ” U n g a n re p lie d , “ W h e re th e re is no b ir th , n o d y in g .” D 6go sa id , “ D o n ’t say t h a t ! S ay, w h e re th e re is n o t a n y no b ir th and no d y in g , and w e d o n ’t d e s ire to m e e t each o th e r a g a in .” U n g a n ’s a n sw e r w as to o re lig io u s , D 6go’s to o tra n s ­ 82 Yakusan to Sekisd c e n d e n ta l. C e rta in ly Z en is fo r illn e s s as w e ll as fo r h e a lth , th o u g h w e a re n o t to ld o f a n y m o n k w h o be­ cam e enlightened on a s ic k -b e d , b u t D 6go w as c le a rly to o o ffic io u s . G iv in g som eone a Z en examination w h e n he fe e ls p o o rly , and te llin g h im h e has fa ile d in i t is n o t e x a c tly a s a lu ta ry and health-giving p ro c e d u re . Z en m u s t be a t one and th e sam e tim e super-human and infra-human. A s to th e q u e s tio n o f lif e a fte r d eath, th ose m o n ks w h o b e lie v e in reincarnation h a ve no p ro b le m ; th ose w h o d o n ^ , ta k e th e c o n v e n ie n t a t­ titu d e th a t b ir th is d e a th and m e e tin g is p a rtin g and escape th e d iffic u lty b y transcendentalising it . I th in k th e tru e Z e n a ttitu d e is th a t o f M rs . G am p. W e a re b o rn in a v a le , and m u s t ta k e th e ( p a in fu l) consequences o f such a s itu a tio n . D 6go w as asked b y a m o n k , “ W h a t is th e deepest?” D ogo cam e d o w n fro m h is seat, m ade obeisance in th e m a n n e r o f w o m e n ,女人拝，and sa id , “ Y o u h a ve come fro m fa r, and I h a ve no a n sw e r fo r y o u .” D 6g o ’s a c tio n a nd w o rd s w e re deepest. T o k n o w th a t th e re is n o th in g to k n o w , a nd to g rie v e th a t i t is so d iffic u lt to communicate th is “ n o th in g to k n o w ” to others,—this is th e lif e o f Z en, th is is th e deepest th in g in th e w o rld . S e kisd (Shihshuang)石 霜 ，becam e a m o n k w h e n yo un g, and s tu d ie d u n d e r Isa n , th e n D ogo, b y w h o m he was c e rtifie d . H e d ie d in 888. H e show s som e originality in h is te a c h in g , b u t o th e rw is e th e re is n o t m u ch to be sa id a b o u t h im . S ekiso asked D ogo (T a o w u ) 768-835, uA f te r a h u n ­ d re d ye a rs, i f som eone asks a b o u t th e a b s o lu te m e a n in g o f th e u n iv e rs e , w h a t s h a ll I say to h im ? ” D 6go c a lle d th e boy-attendant, w h o cam e, and to ld h im f i l l up th e water-bottle. D ogo w a ite d a w h ile , and th e n said to S ekis6, “ W h a t w as i t y o u asked ju s t n o w ? ” S ekiso re p e a te d th e q u e s tio n . D ogo th e re u p o n w e n t b a ck to h is ro o m . A t th is , S e kiso becam e enlightened. T h is k in d o f th in g show s a g e n iu s a b o ve even th a t The Sutras 83

o f P la to o r Michelangelo, o r B a ch h im s e lf. T he c re a tio n o f th e w o rld , its e v o lu tio n , its fin a l destruction, its e te r n ity a nd in f in it y is (to b e seen in ) th e f illin g o f a water-bottle, in w a itin g , in re p e a tin g a q u e s tio n , in g o in g b a c k to one’s ro o m . N o w o n d e r S e kiso w as enlightened. B u t a ll th is w as done b y D ogo, co n ­ s c io u s ly ; b y e v e ry T om , D ic k , a nd H a r r y also, b u t unconsciously, b y e v e ry s tic k a nd stone, w h ic h “ th e best o f us e x c e l,” sin ce th e y do a ll th a t th e y a re ca p a b le o f; even D ogo does n o t do th is a lw a y s . A m o n k asked S e kiso, “ W h a t is th e m e a n in g o f D a ru m a ’s c o m in g fro m th e W e st? ” S e kiso snapped h is te e th to g e th e r. T h e m o n k d id n o t understand. A fte r S ekis6’s d e a th th e m o n k asked K y u h o (C h iu fe n g ) 九峰，w h a t S ekiso h a d m e a n t b y s h u ttin g h is te e th . K y u h o said, uF o r m y p a rt, I w o u ld ra th e r c u t o u t m y to ng ue and n o t sham e m y c o u n try .” T h e m o n k asked U n g a i ( Y i i n k a i) 雲蓋，a b o u t it , w h o sa id , “ A m I an enem y o f S e kis6 ’s?” T h is a ne cdo te is r a th e r easy to understand, i f w e re a lis e th a t th e tr u t h can be sp oke n o n ly i f w e speak, o r s h u t o u r m o u th s , truthfully. T h e tr u t h is n o t a n o u n ; i t is h a r d ly a v e rb , c e rta in ly n o t an a d je c tiv e . “ In th e b e g in n in g w as th e W o rd .” F a u s t am ends th is to, “ In th e b e g in n in g w as th e A c t,” th a t is , a c tin g . I w o u ld p re fe r to say, “ In th e b e g in n in g w as th e A d v e rb .” “ G od is lo v e .” “ 6 o d is lo v in g .” “ G od is lo v in g ly .” A m o n k asked S ekisd, “ Is th e m e a n in g o f D a ru m a ’s co m in g fro m th e W e st c o n ta in e d in th e B u d d h is t te a c h - in g s? ” “ I t is ,” re p lie d S e kis6. “ W h a t is th e m e a n in g o f D a ru m a ’s c o m in g fro m th e W e st ta u g h t th e re ? ” “ D o n ’t lo o k fo r i t in th e s u tra s !” s a id S ekis6. T h is is v e ry good a nd c le a r. T h e tr u t h is in th e B ib le , th e H o ly B ib le , b u t d o n ’t lo o k in th e B ib le fo r i t ! A s T h o re a u sa id , “ W h e n y o u v is it G od, d o n ’t ask to see one o f th e s e rv a n ts .” W hen S e kisd w as a t Is a n ’s h e w as in ch a rg e o f th e ric e . O ne d a y, w h e n h e w as s ie v in g it , Is a n said, ^ D o n ^ 84 Yakusan to Sekisd s p ill th e d o n o r’s r ic e !” “I ’ m n o t s p illin g i t ! , said S ekiso. Is a n p ic k e d u p a g ra in o f ric e fro m th e flo o r, show ed i t to S e kiso, and sa id , uW h a t do y o u m ean, n o t s p illin g it? W h e re d id th is g ra in o f ric e com e fro m then?” Sekis6 w as silent. Is a n went on, “ D o n ’t m ake lig h t o f th is g ra in o f ric e . A h u n d re d th o u s a n d g ra in s a ll com e fro m th is one g ra in .” S e kiso sa id , M a y I ask w h e re th is g ra in o f ric e com es fro m ? ” Is a n gave a g re a t la u g h and w e n t b a c k to h is ro o m . T h a t e ve n in g h e sa id to th e m o n ks assem bled in th e h a ll, ^ Y o u m onks, th e re ’s an in s e c t in y o u r r ic e !” What pleased Is a n w as S e kisa ’s sile n ce w h e n he was re p ro v e d , and h is a n s w e rin g b a c k w h e n he was g ru m b le d a t to o m u ch . W h e re does lif e com e fro m ? T h is q u e s tio n is no n e a re r b e in g a nsw ere d th a n i t ever w as. B u t does lif e “ com e,” a n yw a y? Does s p rin g “ com e”？ D o m en com e a nd go? Yes, lif e comes, b u t i t also does n o t com e. T h e s ie v in g o f th e ric e is caused by th e h u n g e r o f th e m o n ks, b u t i t is also causeless. S ie v in g is ju s t s ie v in g . W ith a ll o u r care, a g ra in o f ric e is s p ille d , b u t G od co u n ts e v e ry g ra in o f ric e , s p ille d and u n s p ille d . A m o n k cam e to S e kisd fro m K a n k e i (K u a n c h ‘i ) 灌 溪 ， S ekiso sa id to h im , <4Ou r S o u th e rn te m p le is n o t as good as h is N o rth e rn te m p le .” T h e m o n k d id n o t k n o w w h a t to say in re p ly . G o in g b a c k to K a n k e i, he re p o rte d w h a t S ekiso h ad sa id . K a n k e i e rie d , “ W h y on e a rth d id n 't y o u t e ll S ekiso th a t I h a ve p re p a re d th e N irv a n a H a ll? ” M o n ks used to tr a v e l a b o u t th e c o u n try , v is itin g th e g re a t m aste rs o f Z en, and m a k in g o diou s comparisons b e tw e e n th e m . S ekiso to ld th e m o n k he w as no b e tte r, as a m a s te r o f Z en, th a n K a n k e i. S e kiso w as Sekiso, K a n k e i w as K a n k e i; th e w illo w is g re e n , th e flo w e rs a re re d . W h e n K a n k e i h e a rd w h a t S e kiso h a d said, he to ld th e m o n k th a t he w as p re p a re d fo r d e a th , th a t was a ll- In th e fa ce o f d e a th , a ll competition a nd a m b itio n is meaningless. D ire c tly fa c in g d e a th is in d e e d en­ The Nehando 85 lightenment its e lf. (T h e N e h a n d d ,涅槃堂，N irv a n a H a ll, w as th e m o n a s te ry in fir m a r y . I t w as also c a lle d M u jo d o , 無常堂，H a ll o f Impermanence, in w h ic h m o n ks w e re supposed to be i l l a nd d ie , b u t m a n y o f th e m d id n o t w is h to go to N irv a n a so q u ic k ly , so th e n am e w as changed to E n ju d 6 ,延寿堂，Life-prolonging H a ll.) Chapter XII

SENSU, KASSAN, SHOZAN

Sensu (Ch‘uantzii)船 子 , dates unknown, was a co­ disciple of D6go under Yakusan, whom he assisted for t h ir t y ye a rs. A fte r he le f t Y a ku sa n , h e used to fe r r y a s m a ll b o a t across th e r iv e r , and te a ch Z en to those b o a rd in g it , — fro m th is h is nam e “ B o a tm a n .” H e o fte n lifte d u p h is o a r, a nd said, “ D o y o u understand?” H e passed on th e lin e o f Z en to K assan. A t la s t, he tu rn e d over the boat with his foot and sank into the water. T h e anecdotes c o n c e rn in g h im a re fe w , p a r tly fro m h is la te r m od e o f life . K assan (C h ia s h a n )夾 山 ，becam e a m o n k w h e n yo un g, a nd w as enlightened b y Sensu. H e w as n o te d fo r th e s e v e rity o f h is m e th o d o f te a c h in g . A m o n k asked K a s­ san, ^H o w a b o u t w h e n w e c le a r a w a y th e d u st, and see th e B u d d h a ? ” K a ssan sa id , “ Y o u m u s t w ie ld a sw o rd ! I f y o u d o n ’t, i t ’s a fis h e rm a n liv in g in a n e s t!’’ T he m o n k b ro u g h t th e m a tte r u p to S ekis6, and asked, “ H ow a b o u t w h e n w e c le a r a w a y th e d u s t and see th e B u d d h a ? ” S ekiso a nsw ere d, uH e is n o t in th e c o u n try ; h o w can y o u m e e t h im ? ” T he m o n k w e n t b a ck and to ld K assan w h a t S e kiso sa id . K assan ascended th e ro s tru m and announced, uA s fo r m easures fo r th ose n o t y e t enlightened, th e re is no one lik e m e, b u t as fo r deep sp e a kin g o f th e a b so lu te , S ekiso is a h u n d re d paces b e yo n d m e.” K assan says th a t w h e n y o u c le a r a w a y th e e n ta n g le ­ m e n ts o f reason and e m o tio n , and see th e B u d d h a , yo u m u s t g e t r id o f th e B u d d h a h im s e lf, in o rd e r m e re ly to see; y o u m u s t n o t see so m e th in g o r som ebody. S ekiso, w h e n th e sam e p ro b le m o f seeing th e B u d d h a was Kassan 87 b ro u g h t u p to h im , sa id th e sam e th in g , b u t d ir e c tly , concretely, w ith o u t explanation o r instruction, so Kassan p ra is e d h im . A m o n k asked K assan, “ W h a t is K a ssan ’s c h a ra c te r lik e ? ” H e re p lie d , m o n k e y , c la s p in g its y o u n g one, goes b a c k b e h in d th e b lu e m o u n ta in . A b ir d h o ld in g a flo w e r in its b e a k fa lls d o w n b e fo re th e g re e n ro c k .” T h e a n sw e r is , lo v e and beauty,—and no ta lk o f Zen, th a n k goodness (a n d b e a u ty ). A m o n k o f K a ssa n ’s w e n t to K 6 te i (K a o t‘i n g ) 髙亭，and had ju s t b o w e d to h im w h e n K o te i s tru c k h im on th e b ack. T h e m o n k b o w e d a g a in , a nd a g a in K o te i s tru c k h im , and d ro v e h im a w a y. T h e m o n k to ld K a ssan a b o u t ttiis , and K a ssan asked, “ D o y o u understand?” “ N o ,” re p lie d th e m o n k . “ T h a t’s a good th in g ,” sa id K a ssan ， “ F o r i f y o u d id , I w o u ld be dumbfounded.” N yo g e n S e n z a k i has a fin e c o m m e n t on th is anecdote. “ A m e ric a n Z e n is ru n n in g sid e w a ys, w r itin g books, le c tu rin g , r e fe r r in g to th e o lo g y , psychology, a nd w h a t n o t. S om eone s h o u ld s ta n d u p a nd sm ash th e w h o le th in g to p ie c e s ----- ’’ K assan w as d o in g zazen w h e n T ozan cam e a nd asked h im , “ H o w a b o u t it ? ” K assen a n sw e re d , “ J u s t lik e th is .” T h is k in d o f conversation is a r e lie f fro m th e som e­ tim e s e xcessive p a ra d o x a nd “m ysterification” o f th e Zen m aste rs, a nd is n e a re r to Z e n b y its thusness. K assan h a d a m o n k w h o w e n t ro u n d a ll th e Z en te m p le s b u t fo u n d n o th in g to s u it h im a n y w h e re . T h e nam e o f K a ssan , h o w e v e r, w as o fte n m e n tio n e d to h im fro m fa r a nd n e a r as a g re a t m a s te r, so h e cam e b a c k and interviewed K a ssan , a nd sa id , “ Y o u h a v e an espe cia l understanding o f Z en . H o w is i t y o u d id n ’t re v e a l th is to m e?” K a ssan sa id , tcWhen y o u b o ile d ric e , d id n ’t I lig h t th e fire ? W h e n y o u passed ro u n d th e fo o d (anyafciti, g y d e fc i,行 益 ） d id n ’t I o ffe r m y b o w l to you? W h e n d id I b e tra y y o u r expectations?” T h e m o n k w as enlightened. 88 Sensu, Kassan, Shozan

W e te ach Z en, i f w e te a ch i t a t a ll, b y th e w a y w e w rite , th e w a y w e lig h t th e fire , o r h o ld o u t th e b o w l to be fille d w ith ric e . I t is also tru e , h o w e v e r, th a t th e re m a y be som e intellectual o b s ta cle w h ic h p re v e n ts th e (p h y s ic a l) eye o r e ar o r nose fro m p e rc e iv in g tr u th d ir e c tly . In such a case, th e m e a n in g , th e intellectual m e a n in g o f th e w o rd s , m a y cause s a to ri, in th e sense o f re m o v in g th a t intellectual o b sta cle . In th e p re se n t case, th e m o n k , w h o is c a lle d “ a s m a ll m a s te r,” 小師， re a lis e d intellectually th a t he h a d m ad e a m is ta k e in d o in g th e ro u n d o f th e Z en m a ste rs e x p e c tin g to get so m e th in g fro m th e m , o r fro m K assan h im s e lf. A m o n k asked K assan, “ W h a t is th e W a y? ” He a n sw e re d , “ T h e sun o v e rflo w s o u r eyes; fo r te n th ou san d leagues n o t a c lo u d hangs in th e s k y .” “ W h a t is th e R e a l F o rm o f th e U n iv e rs e ? ” asked th e m o n k . “ [E v e n ] th e fish es a t p la y in th e clear-flowing w a te r m a ke th e ir m is ta k e s ，” re p lie d K assan. “ T h e W a y is n o t difficult,” w as th e s a y in g o f S6zan. W h a t is d iffic u lt is to g e t on i t ; w h e n y o u a re a c tu a lly on it , i t is as easy as p ie ; lif e is lik e a d a y in th e open a ir in e a rly su m m e r. K a ssa n ’s a n sw e r to th e second q u e s tio n , a b o u t th e o rig in a l, th a t is, fundamental fo rm o f th e u n iv e rs e , is m o re d iffic u lt to understand. T he f^ r m is lik e p u re w a te r, b u t even in p u re w a te r the imagination clo u d s i t ; a sh a d o w is ta k e n fo r a n o th e r fis h , a n o th e r fis h is ta k e n fo r a sh ad ow . G od is th o u g h t o f as th e B ig F is h . A m o n k asked K assan, “ W h a t is th e O rig in a l T e a ch e r? ” K a ssan sa id , “ H e d rin k s th e w a te r; he doesn’t w ash h is h a ir in th e s p rin g .” I t is sa id th a t th e p o e t has “ th e n a tu re o f th e sun, th a t passes th ro u g h p o llu tio n s a nd its e lf re m a in s as p u re as b e fo re ,” b u t th is is n o t p o ssib le , and th e re fo re n o t p ro p e r. K assan sa id to h is m o n k s ，“ F in d m e in th e tip s o f a h u n d re d grasses; re co g n ise th e P rin c e in a n o isy m a rk e t !n Shozan 89

T h e heads o f a h u n d re d grasses also m eans n a tu ra l phenom ena. W h e n w e see th e lea ves f a ll, th e su n ris e , th e fis h s w im , w e u n d e rs ta n d th e m a s te r’s w o rd s . T h e P rin c e , th e v a lu e , th e p ro fo u n d m e a n in g is in th e co n ­ fu s io n a nd d is o rd e r o f th is w o rld , n o t in B u d d h is t peace o r som e e a r th ly p a ra d is e . W h e n K a ssan w as a b o u t to d ie , h e c a lle d th e c h ie f m o n k, a nd sa id to h im , <4I h a ve p re a ch e d th e W a y to th e m o n ks fo r m a n y y e a rs. T h e p ro fo u n d m e a n in g o f B u d d h is m is to be k n o w n b y each p e rso n h im s e lf. M y illu s o r y lif e is o v e r; I am a b o u t to d e p a rt. Y o u m o n k s sh o u ld go on ju s t th e sam e as w h e n I w as a liv e . Y o u sh o u ld n o t b lin d ly m a k e o rd in a ry p e o p le miserable.” H a v in g sa id th is , h e immediately passed a w a y . K a ssan seems to h a ve been a n ic e s o rt o f chap. S h6zan (S h a o s h a n )韶山，d ates u n k n o w n , w as th e d is ­ c ip le o f K assan. N o th in g is k n o w n o f h im e x c e p t a fe w anecdotes o f h is te a c h in g . A m o n k asked S h6zan, “ Is th e re a se nte nce w h ic h does n o t b e lo n g to th e re a lm o f r ig h t a nd w ro n g , to is and is n o t? ” S hdzan sa id , “ T h e re is .” “ W h a t is it? ” asked th e m o n k . “A s in g le c lo u d flo a tin g in th e s k y has n o th ­ in g u g ly a b o u t i t . ” T o say s o m e th in g w h ic h is lo g ic a lly n e ith e r affirm ative o r n e g a tiv e is h a r d ly p o s s ib le , e x c e p t fo r exclamations lik e “ K w a tz !’’ o r b lo w s . S hozan in d e e d uses a k in d o f d o u b le alternative, in d e n y in g one o f th e p a irs , u g ly - b e a u tifu l. T h e p o in t is th a t th e s e n te n c e ,句 ，w h ic h is n o t dichotomous, is so because o f th e p e rso n w h o says it , th e w a y h e says it , h is s ta te o f m in d b e fo re a nd d u rin g a nd a fte r s a y in g it . T h u s S h o z a n ^ se nte nce is S h6zan’s; w e can h a r d ly re p e a t i t as an e x a m p le o f absoluteness, fo r i t becom es repetitious, artificial, a nd calculated. W e m u s t h a v e Ia g o ’s m o tiv e le s s m a lig n ity w ith o u t th e m a lig n ity . A m o n k s a id to S h6zan, “ W h a t is th e sp h e re o f S hdzan’s m in d , 境 ？，’ S hdzan sa id , “ F ro m o ld e n tim e s up to n o w , m o n k e y s a nd b ird s lif t e d u p th e ir vo ice s, th in b lu e m is t co ve re d a ll th in g s .” T h e m o n k asked, 90 Sensu, Kassan, Shozan

“ W ho is th e p e rso n in th is sp h e re o f m in d ? ” S hozan s a id ，“ Be o ff w ith y o u !” The monk had been given one difficult answer and to ask fo r a n o th e r w as s im p ly greediness, w h ic h w as r ig h t ly re p ro v e d . P e rh a p s, h o w e v e r, th e m o n k le a rn e d m o re (Z e n ) fro m “ G e t o u t ! ，’ th a n fro m th e p o e tic a l inscrutability o f S h o za n ^ fir s t a n sw e r. A m o n k asked, “ W h a t is S h6zan’s sp e c ia l Z e n , 家 風 ？” S h6zan re p lie d , “ O n th e to p o f a m o u n ta in , ro o tle ss grass; th e le a ve s m o v in g , th o u g h th e re is n o w in d .” In th is a n sw e r w e h a v e th e c o m p le m e n t o f th e fo rm e r one. T h in g s a re as th e y a re , and, a t th e same tim e , th in g s a re n o t as th e y a re. T re e s g ro w fro m ro o ts , and a t th e sam e tim e th e y g ro w w ith o u t ro o ts , w ith o u t cause a n d e ffe c t; th e y g ro w lik e T o p sy, ju s t g ro w . T h e leaves a re m o v in g , n o t because th e re is an earthquake, b u t because th e y ju s t w a n t to m o ve :

T h e r iv e r g lid e th a t its o w n sw e e t w ill.

A m o n k cam e to S hozan, m ad e an obeisance, p u t h is hands to g e th e r, and sto o d u p . Shozan sa id , “ G re a t tim b e r is k e p t in a p o o r k in d o f hou se.” T h e m o n k th e n passed b e fo re S hozan once. S hozan sa id , “A m aste r w o rk m a n gets r id o f th e tim b e r.” T h is is e x tre m e ly interesting, b u t n o t easy. T h e g re a t tim b e r p e rh a p s s ig n ifie s an enlightened m o n k , w hose a pp ea ra nce a nd m a n n e r a re fa r fro m e x u b e ra n t. O r i t m a y be Z en, o r th e B u d d h a n a tu re , seen u s u a lly in th e m o st u n lik e ly places. T h e second re m a rk , th a t a m a ste r c a rp e n te r uses u p h is m a te ria ls to c re a te s o m e th in g b e t­ te r, a k ir k o r a b a rn , m a y w e ll s ig n ify th a t th e good m o n k is , as fa r as h e is co n ce rn e d , a m eans, n o t an end. Z en, and th e B u d d h a n a tu re a re th e sam e. T he B u d d h a m u s t be k ille d , Z en m u s t be transcended. J u n fu n d (T s u n p u n a ) 遵布衲 sa id to S h6zan, “ A b o u t th e c le a r m ir r o r ,— I w o u ld lik e y o u to h a v e a lo o k in i t . ” S h6zan sa id , “ N o t a g la n c e .” “ W h y n o t? ” asked J u n fu n o . Shozan sa id , UA b ro k e n m ir r o r w i ll n o t a ga in Shozan 91 re fle c t; fa lle n flo w e rs w i ll n o t r e tu r n to th e b ra n c h .” T h is o f co urse re fe rs to th e poem-contest b e tw e e n E nd and J in s h u . E n d d e c la re d th a t th e re w as no m ir r o r , and S hozan says th a t even i f th e re w as th e illu s io n o f one, th a t illu s io n , in h is case, has been fo r e v e r d e s tro y ­ ed; i t is as dead as dead lea ves. J u n fu n o w as a s e n io r m o n k to Y a ku sa n . Chapter XIII

TOZAN

W h e n T oza n w as a c h ild , he becam e a m o n k in th e te m p le o f a V in a y a 1 p rie s t. O ne d a y th is p rie s t was teaching the Ma/cahannya and when he came to the passage, “No eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no b o d y , no consciousness,Tozan c o u ld n o t fo llo w th e p rie s t. A s fo r th e eye, lo o k in g a t th e V in a y a p rie s t, a n d w ith h is h a n d fe e lin g h is b o d y, h e sa id to h im , “ T h e M a s te r has eyes, ears, a nd so on, and I to o ; w h y does th e B u d d h a say w e h a v e n ’t? ” T h e V in a y a p rie s t w as astonished, a nd sa id , “ I ’m n o t th e te a c h e r fo r yo u ; y o u w i ll one d a y be a g re a t M a h a ya n a m issionary,and h e se n t h im o ff to be a m o n k u n d e r G o ei (W u h s ie h ) 五拽，a d is c ip le o f B aso; he d ie d in 818. T oza n s a id to U n g a n ，“ M a s te r，i f som eone asks me a h u n d re d y e a rs a fte rw a rd s w h a t I th o u g h t w as y o u r deepest understanding,真 ，w h a t s h o u ld I say?” U ngan a n sw e re d , “ T e ll h im I sa id , ‘I t is s im p ly th is .’ ’’ Tozan w as s ile n t fo r a tim e a nd U n g a n sa id , ^ K a i,1 2 i f yo u h a ve g rasped th is , y o u m u s t c a rry i t o u t in d e ta il V* T oza n w as s t ill s ile n t. U n g a n s tru c k h im . Afterwards, w h e n T ozan w as h o ld in g a s e rv ic e in m e m o ry o f U n - g an ’s deepest understanding, a m o n k sa id to h im , “ The dead te a c h e r said, ‘I t is s im p ly th is !’ T h is is th e ye a - s a y in g s p ir it? ” “ I t is ,” re p lie d T 6zan. T h e m o n k a sk- ed, “ W h a t does th is m ean?” T 6za n sa id , “ A t th a t tim e , m y id e a w as a lm o s t e n tir e ly a m is ta k e n one, th o u g h I

1. Of the Vinaya (discipline) School founded in China by Dosen (Taohsttan)道宣，of the Tang dynasty. 2. Tdzan’s name was Ryokai. The Buddha 93

u n d e rs to o d w h a t he m e a n t a ll r ig h t.” “ T h e dead te a c h e r,” sa id th e m o n k , “ d id h e k n o w I t , 有 ，o r n o t? ” T 6za n sa id , “ I f h e d id n ’t, h o w c o u ld h e sa y such th in g ; and i f he d id , h o w c o u ld h e a v o id s a y in g it? ” “A h u n d re d y e a rs afterwards” m eans “ w h e n y o u a re dead”； i f ta k e n lite r a lly , th e s p e a ke r w o u ld also h a ve gone to th e Y e llo w S p rin g s . “ I t is s im p ly th is ” is th e v e ry essence o f Z en , th e p o in t b e in g in “ s im p ly .” A th in g has e x is te n c e v a lu e ; in fin ite m e a n in g in b e in g w h a t i t is. Enlightenment is p e rc e iv in g once fo r a ll th is p o e tic factuality, th is re lig io u s th usn ess. A n d i f th e enlightenment is re a l, i t m u s t be, as U n g a n a nd B la k e sa id , “ in m in u te d e ta ils ” o f d a ily life . T 6 za n ’s answ ers to th e m o n k ’s q u e s tio n s a re m o d e ls o f m o d e sty, i f n o t o f lo g ic , a nd th e fo rm e r is m o re c o n v in c in g th a n th e la tte r . T ozan a n n o u n ce d : “ Y o u m u s t k n o w th a t th e re is s o m e th in g b e y o n d th e B u d d h a !” A t a c e rta in tim e a m o n k asked, “ W h a t is th is w h ic h tra n s c e n d s th e B u d d h a ? ” T 6 za n a n sw e re d , “ N o t B u d d h a !” “ B u d d h a ” m eans enlightenment, o r Z en , o r th e su prem e tr u th . W h a t is b e yo n d th is ? T h e a n s w e r c le a rly is, d e lu s io n , n o n -Z e n , a ll b u t th e su p re m e tr u th . G od, righteousness, co u ra g e , self-lessness,—these a re easy to understand. B u t th e D e v il, e v il, c o w a rd ic e , selfishness,—who can e x p la in these? A s C h ris t sa id , “ I f y o u r righteousness does n o t exceed th a t o f th e P h a ris e e s ----- ’’ W e h a v e to b re a k o u t o f goodness, ta s te th e u n iq u e fla v o u r o f u g lin e s s , e n jo y th e lie s and h y p o c ris y o f h u m a n n a tu re ,— as w e a c tu a lly do, w h e n ­ e ve r w e la u g h . R e a l Z e n m eans n e v e r to sto p la u g h in g . T 6zan sa id to h is m o n k s , “ W o rd s do n o t e xpress th in g s ; ta lk in g does n o t m e e t th e v it a l o cca sio n ; th o se w h o ac­ ce p t p hrases p e ris h ; p e o p le w h o h a n g ro u n d sentences becom e d e lu d e d .” T a k in g th ese F o u r S ta te m e n ts one b y one, i t is tru e th a t w o rd s do n o t e xp re ss th in g s . Wo rd s a re (a n e s se n tia l p a r t o f) th in g s . A th in g w ith o u t a w o rd s tr ic t­ ly s p e a k in g has n o (h u m a n ) e x is te n c e . B u t, a th in g 94 Tdzan o r a word,—either w i ll do. O ne is n o t s u p e rio r to th e o th e r. “Talking does n o t m e e t th e v it a l occasion, 機 This also is not correct. Zen talking (not talking about Zen) will m e e t any occasion. “ T hose w h o accept phrases p e ris h .,> T h is is tr u e e no ug h, because phrases in v e n te d b y so m e bo dy else do n o t sp ea k to o u r c o n d i­ tio n , and o u r c o n d itio n does n o t speak th e m . T h e la s t, “ T hose w h o h a n g ro u n d sentences becom e d e lu d e d , applies equally to politicians, scientists, and “literary” p e o p le . K e a ts , M ilto n , Shakespeare, S penser, a g re a t n u m b e r o f g re a t E n g lis h w rite r s d e lu d e d themselves, b e fu d d le d th e m se lve s w ith b e a u tifu l w o rd s . T h is is w h a t W o rd s w o rth fe lt, b u t to o v a g u e ly , to o transitorily. T 6za n, to g e th e r w ith H a k u ( P a i) 伯 ，a p rie s t o f th e mysticschool’ enteredapastry-cook’satthesam etim e. T h e m y s tic p rie s t d re w a c irc le on th e g ro u n d , and said, “ T a k e i t a w a y !，， T 6za n sa id , “ P ic k i t u p a nd b rin g i t h e r e !” T h e m y s tic p rie s t h a d no m o re to say. T h is episode re m in d s us o f th e competition th a t w e n t on in C h in a a m ong th e v a rio u s sects, unaccompanied h o w e v e r b y th e persecution and c a lu m n y o f th e W est. O ne m o re p o in t to n o tic e is th a t o n ly c le v e r p eo ple can u n d e rs ta n d Z en o r b e good, o r w r ite p o e try o r com pose m u sic. T h e q u e s tio n re m a in s h o w e v e r, w h a t is th e m e a n in g o f “ c le v e r”？ W e ll, i f y o u a re “ c le v e r” y o u k n o w it , o th e rw is e ___ S 6 m its u ( S e n g m i) 僧 密 ，and T 6za n w e re cro ssin g a r iv e r to g e th e r. T oza n sa id , “ D o n ’t m a k e a m is ta k e in w h e re y o u tre a d !’’ S 6 m its u sa id , “ I f I d o n ’t m a k e a m is ­ ta k e h o w can I cross th e r iv e r ? ” T oza n sa id , uW ho is he th a t m akes no m is ta k e ? ” S 6 m its u sa id , “ H e w ho crosses th e w a te r w ith an enlightened m a n .” T h is re m in d s us o f C h ris tia n a nd F a ith fu l, o r ra th e r, o f C h ris tia n and M r. Greatheart. I t is th e justification o f th e R om an C a th o lic C h u rc h , w ith its b a n n e d books. B u t i t is tr u e e no ug h, th e fu n c tio n o f g re a t m en is to re d u ce , s lig h tly , th e n u m b e r o f o u r m is ta k e s . A m o n k sa id to T oza n, <4Yo u a lw a y s t e ll le a rn e rs to The Triple Synopsis 95 ta k e th e W a y o f th e B ird s ; w h a t is th is W a y o f th e B ird s ? ” T 6za n sa id , “ Y o u m e e t n o b o d y on i t . ” T h e m o n k th e n asked, “ H o w can w e go on th is W a y ? ” T ozan a nsw ere d, “ B y egolessness, a tte n d in g to each step as i t com es.” T h e m o n k sa id , “ Is n ’t th e B ird s ’ W a y th e e as one’s o r ig in a l n a tu re ? ” T oza n sa id , uO m o n k , do y o u g e t e v e ry th in g upside-down,”3 T h e m o n k asked, “ W h a t is th is p la ce w h e re p e o p le g e t th in g s upside-down?”3 4 T oza n sa id , “ I f th e re w e re no to p s y ­ tu rv in e s s h o w c o u ld a s e rv a n t becam e a lo rd ? ” T h e m o n k asked, “ W h a t is o u r o rig in a l n a tu re ? ” T ozan answ ered, “ N o t ta k in g th e W a y o f th e B ird s .” 5 In th e end, T oza n has to go b a c k to L a o tse , a nd say, “ T h e w a y w h ic h can b e c a lle d a ( b ir d ’s) w a y is n o t th e E te rn a l W a y .” “ M e e tin g n o b o d y on i t , ” 一 th is is as good a te s t o f th e W a y as a n y. T h e “ W a y o f th e B ird s ” is th e fir s t o f T 6 za n ’s T h re e W a ys. T h e second is T he S e cret W a y ,玄 路 ，n o t v e ry d iffe r e n t fro m th e fir s t, in m e a n in g a w a y b e y o n d is-and-is-not, enlightenment and d e lu s io n . T h e th ir d is T h e Outstretched H a n d , 展手， to save o th e rs . T 6zan ta u g h t A T r ip le S y n o p s is ,三 種 綱 要 . F ir s t, 敲 唱倶行，K n o c k in g a n d a n s w e rin g , companionate a c tiv ity . T he d is c ip le w a n ts to le a rn , a nd is ta u g h t; d is c ip le and m a ste r “ w o r k ” to g e th e r a t th e d is c ip le ’s s a lv a tio n . S e c o n d ,金 鎖 玄 路 ，G o ld e n c h a in , s e cre t p a th . O u r r e la ­ tio n w ith th e B u d d h a is a “ g o ld e n ” one, b u t i t is also a k in d o f b in d in g . T h e th ir d is 不 堕 凡 聖 ，N o t d is tin ­ g u is h in g w is e m en a nd fo o ls . T h is , to a s e n s itiv e and intelligent p e rso n , is p e rh a p s th e m o s t d iffic u lt. A m o n k sa id to T ozan, ftA m o n k has d ie d ; w h e re has he gone?” T oza n a n sw e re d , “ A f te r th e fire , a s p ro u t o f grass.”

3. To assert that a cat is an animal is to get the matter upside- down. 4. Making mistakes is an essential part of human nature, the Buddha nature. 5. Be Upside-down ! 96 Tdzan

I ta k e th is to m ean, “ H e is as dead as a d o o r-n a il. H e has gone n o w h e re . H e has ceased to e x is t. A t th e same tim e , life , in som e fo rm o r o th e r c o n tin u e s , a t p re s e n t a n y w a y .” T h is q u e s tio n o f th e after-life, w h ic h is m ix e d u p w ith th e n o tio n o f reincarnation, does n o t o fte n a ris e ; th e m o st interesting r e p ly is th e fo llo w in g . Seppo sa id to G ensha, 4

h o ld in g an anniversary m e e tin g fo r B a s o ^ d e a th . N a n ­ sen sa id to assem bled m o n ks, uW e a re g o in g to c e le b ra te Baso to m o rro w . D o y o u th in k h e w i ll be p re s e n t, o r n o t? ” N o one am ong th e m o n ks a n sw e re d ; b u t T oza n sa id , “ H e w ill w a it fo r a co m p a n io n , a nd w i ll com e i f he com es.” N ansen sa id , “ T h is m an is y o u n g , b u t h e can be shaped and p o lis h e d .” T oza n sa id , “ Y o u r g ra ce s h o u ld n o t d is lik e a good m a n a nd re g a rd h im as worthless.” “ P re se n t, o r n o t p re s e n t? ” Superstition says, “ P re - se nt”； com m on sense says, “ N o t p re s e n t.” Z en is n e ith e r. W h a t does i t say? I t says, w ith p o e try , “ P re s e n t o r n o t p re se n t? ” T oza n says th e dead m a s te r w i ll w a it fo r a co m p a n io n . W h o is th e c o m p a n io n o f an enlightened m an? T h e a n sw e r c le a rly is G od, b u t w h o is G od? G od is lo v e . I f y o u lo v e Baso h e w i ll com e a nd m a k e h is abode w ith y o u . T 6zan w e n t to see Isa n , a nd sa id to h im , “ R e c e n tly I h e a rd th a t T oza n o f N a n y o sp oke o f in s e n tie n t b e in g s p re a c h in g th e L a w , b u t I ca n ’t g e t to th e b o tto m o f i t . ” Isa n sa id , “ D o y o u re m e m b e r w h a t w as sa id ? ” ul re ­ m em b e r i i f" sa id T oza n. ^T h e n t r y and re p e a t w h a t w as s a id ,” sa id Is a n . T oza n re c o u n te d th e fo llo w in g . A m o n k asked (N a n y o ) w h a t th e m in d o f th e a n c ie n t B u dd h as w as, a nd h e re p lie d , “ I t is fe nce s, w a lls , and b ro k e n tiles®•” T h e m o n k sa id , “ Fences, w a lls and b ro k e n tile s a re insentient, a re n ’t th e y ? ” N a n y 6 sa id , “ T h a t is so.” “ D o th e y e xp o u n d B u d d h is m ? ” asked th e m o n k. “ A lw a y s , a n d b u s ily ,” sa id N a n y d . T h e m o n k said, ‘W h y d o n ’t I h e a r i t th e n ? ” N a n y o a n sw e re d , “ Y o u d o n ’t h e a r it , b u t y o u s h o u ld n ’t p re v e n t o th e rs d o in g so.” 67 “ W h o h e a rs it? ” asked th e m o n k . “ A ll th e sa in ts,” a n sw e re d N a n y d .8 “ D oes y o u r g ra ce h e a r it? ”

6. Compare Wordsworth’s The bleak music from that old stone wall. 7. Nanyo should have answered, “ You do, but you don’t know you do.” 8. This is doubtful, unless we define, as I would like to, a saint as an anlmist. 98 Tdzan asked the monk. “Not I ! ，，r e p lie d Nany6. “ I f y o u (Jon’t h e a r it , h o w can y o u e x p la in th e te a c h in g o f th e L a w by in a n im a te creatures?” asked th e m on l^. N a n y o a n ­ sw e re d , “ I t ’s m y good lu c k I d o n ’t h e a r it . I f I d id , I w o u ld be th e sam e as a ll th e s a in ts ，0 a n d t h = y o u w o u ld n ’t h a ve th e chance to h e a r m y te a c h in g . T he m o n k sa id , “ I f th a t is so, p e o p le w o u ld h a v e no p a rt in i t . ” N a n y o sa id , UI m y s e lf e x p o u n d i t fo r th e sake o f p e o p le , n o t fo r th e sake o f th e s a in ts .** T h e m o n k said, “ A fte r th e p e o p le h e a r it , w h a t th e n ? ” ‘T h e n th e y ，r e n o t ju s t p e o p le a n y m o re ,” re p lie d N a n y6 . T h e m o n k asked “ W h a t s u tra does th e d o c trin e com e in ? ” N an yo a n sw e re d , ^ C le a rly , th e S u p e rio r M a n w i ll n o t say a n y ­ th in g o u t o f a cco rd w ith th e s u tra s .u H ave nH y o u rea d in th e K e g o n K y o , ^C o u n trie s e x p o u n d it , p e o p le e x ­ p o u n d it , a ll th in g s o f th e p a st, p re s e n t, and fu tu re e x ­ p o u n d i t ,?>, W ith th is T oza n fin is h e d h is a cco u n t, and Is a n sa id , UI h a ve m y o w n (id e a s a b o u t it , ) b u t fe w persons th e re a re (w h o w a n t to h e a r t h e m ) T o z a n said, “I ，m n o t c le a r a b o u t th e m a tte r; w o n ’t y o u te a ch m e?” Is a n h e ld u p h is h a ir d u s te r,12 a nd sa id , “ D o y o u u n d e r­ sta n d ? ” “I d o n ’t , ” sa id T dza n, “ e x p la in !” Is a n said, uT h e m o u th w e re c e iv e fro m o u r fa th e r a nd m o th e r can­ n o t e x p la in it.^ T 6za n asked, “ Is th e re a n yo n e else w h o lo ve s th e W a y as y o u do?” Is a n sa id , “ F ro m h ere, go to H o ry o i Prefecture, n e a r th e S to n e R oom , and y o u w i ll fin d U n g a n D o jin . I f y o u can t e ll w h ic h w a y th e w in d b lo w s fro m th e w a v in g o f th e grass, y o u w ill c e rta in ly v a lu e h im ___ ’’ T o za n sa id g o o db ye to Isa n and w e n t to U n g a n . H e to ld h im w h a t h a d le d u p to th is m a tte r, and asked, “ W h o can h e a r th is S o u l-le s s T e a ch in g ? ” U n g a n re p lie d , “ S o ul_le ss b e in g s can h e a r 9 12 11 10

9. Would know nothing about the Buddhist teaching of usoul- lessM objects. 10. This is quibbling. He means that the saints don’t teach, or teach silently, but this is suppositious. 11. This should have been said ironically. 12. Isan is now letting a thing teach Buddhism, or helping it to do so. Inanimate Teaching 99

i t . ” T 6za n asked, “ C an y o u h e a r it , o r n o t? ” “ I f I h e a r it , y o u ca n ’t h e a r m y teaching.’’18 T 6za n asked, “ W h y can’t I h e a r it? ” 1314 15 U n g a n ra is e d h is m o s q u ito d u s te r, a nd sa id , “ Y o u h e a r it? ” “I d o n ’t , ” re p lie d T 6za n. U n ­ gan sa id , uY o u ^ 11*t h e a r e ven m y te a c h in g , le t a lo n e th a t o f in a n im a te th in g s .” T 6za n asked in w h a t s u tra th e te a c h in g o f B u d d h is m b y s o u l-le s s th in g s w as ta u g h t. U n g a n asked h im i f h e h a d n o t re a d in th e A m id a K y o , ‘W a te rs , b ird s , tre e s and fo re s ts a ll re p e a t th e B u d d h a ’s nam e, a nd p ro c la in th e L a w .” A t th is T oza n w as e n ­ lig h te n e d , a nd m ad e a v e rs e :

M a rv e llo u s ! M a rv e llo u s ! H o w -mysterious th e Inanimate-Teaching ! I t is d if fic u lt to h e a r w ith th e ears; W h e n w e h e a r w ith th e eyes, th e n w e k n o w i t \w

T he d o c trin e o f th e te a c h in g o f B u d d h is m b y n o n - s e n tie n t b e in g s ,無倩説法，o rig in a te d w ith N a n y 6 , b o rn 775, th e d is c ip le o f th e 6 th P a tria rc h . In B u d d h is m , n o t in Zen, th is w o u ld h a v e a pantheistic m e a n in g , b u t th e q u e stio n a rises, w h a t is th is B u d d h is m w h ic h ro c k s and stream s te a ch us? T h e a n s w e r is , th e y te a ch us th a t th e y te a ch us. T h e y te a c h us th e ir existence-value. A l l te a c h in g is th u s non-sentient, not-intellectual, n o n -e m o - tio n a l. A h u m a n b e in g , as U n g a n says, teaches b e fo re h e opens h is m o u th w h a t in a n y case h e can n e v e r say. W h a t is w ro n g w ith w o rd s is s im p ly th a t th e y a re la te , la te a rr iv a ls in w o r ld h is to ry . So, as T ozan says in h is ve rse , i t is b e tte r to h e a r w ith th e eyes, w h ic h a re e a rly . A m o n k asked T oza n, “ W h a t is th e M y s te ry o f m y s te r ie s ,玄中又玄？” T 6 za n sa id , “ I t is lik e th e to n g u e

13. “When I am in the state of hearing the teaching of so-called inanimate, soul-less objects, I am not teaching you about it.'* 14. Their teaching. 15. Hearing with the eyes, smelling with the ears, seeing with the nose, is a mark of a Buddha. Perhaps Tozan here refers to seeing the mosquito duster raised by Ungan. In any case Tozan^ enlightenment ostensibly came from the words of the sutra. 1 0 0 Tdzan o f a dead m a n .” T h e p h ra se com es fro m L a o tse , w h ic h p e rh a p s th e m o n k h a d been re a d in g . T 6za n says i t is lik e a dead m a n ^ to n g u e , w h ic h is m o re expressive, n o t less, th a n a liv in g m a n ’s. I t is a fa c t, th e d ee pe r w e go, th e m o re e x p re s s iv e th in g s becom e, th e less d u m b and s ile n t. T h a t is w h y s tic k s a n d stones a re so p o e tic a l. T 6za n ascended th e ro s tru m and sa id , “ T h e re is one w h o , in th e m id s t o f a th o u s a n d p e o p le , te n th o u sa n d p e o p le , does n o t a v o id a n y o f th e m , does n o t seek a fte r a n y o f th e m . T e ll m e, w h a t k in d o f m an is he?” U ngo cam e fo rw a rd a nd said, “I am h e re in th e H a ll10.” T h is is th e p ro p e r Z en a n sw e r. N o t, “I am th a t m an, M a tt D illo n ,” b u t, “I am h e re .” T h e “ O ne” w h o n e ith e r d e sire s n o r lo a th e s is n o t I, a nd n o t n o t I. H e is n o t a p e rso n , b u t n o t non-personal. G od is n o t lo v e ; he is n o t an abstraction; b u t also h e is n o t anthropomorphic. God is n o t he, b u t also n o t it . T oza n w as lo o k in g a t th e rice-field, w h e re th e head m o n k R o w as le a d in g an o x. T 6za n sa id , “ B e c a re fu l w ith th a t o x ; h e ’l l e a t th e r ic e •” R d sa id , “ I f th is ox w e re a good one, he w o u ld n ’t e at it . ” A well-trained o x w i ll n o t e a t th e ric e . (T h e C hinese h ad n o t re a d , “ T h o u s h a ll n o t m u z z le th e o x th a t trea ds th e c o rn .’’） H e re w e see a d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n th e m a te ria l a nd th e s p ir itu a l. D iv id e d , lo v e s u ffe rs no decrease, b u t ric e is a d iffe r e n t m a tte r. F o r th is reason also, sym b o ls a re a lw a y s to be a v o id e d , o r used o n ly as a k in d o f gam e. W h e n T ozan w as s a y in g g o o d -b y e to N an ge n, th e la tte r sa id to h im , “ S tu d y B u d d h is m w id e ly , and p ro fit (y o u rs e lf and o th e rs ).” T oza n re p lie d , 4

16. This sentence• 某 甲 参 堂 去 , can also be interpreted, “I am go­ ing back to the monks’ hafl.” In this case, the going back Is '*the one,” Death 1 0 1

T oza n q u ite r ig h t ly o b je c te d to th e id e a o f p ro fit, b u t a fte r a ll, as C h ris t ta u g h t, w e seek fir s t th e k in g d o m o f God, b u t w illy-nilly, “ a ll th ese th in g s s h a ll be added u n to y o u .” W e a re to seek s u ffe rin g fo r its o w n sake, n o t masochistically, fo r som e s p ir itu a l p r o fit; b u t d e p th and s tre n g th a re in e v ita b ly added xin to us. T h e re w as a m o n k i l l in th e in fir m a r y w h o asked to see T oza n. W h e n T oza n w e n t th e re , th e m o n k s a id to h im , “ W h y d o n ’t y o u save o rd in a ry p e o p le ? ” T o za n asked h im , ‘ W h o se is y o u r fa m ily ? ” T h e m o n k re p lie d , “A g re a t ic c h a n tik a fa m ily .” T o za n re m a in e d s ile n t fo r som e tim e . T h e n th e m o n k sa id , “ W h a t s h a ll w e do w h e n th e F o u r M o u n ta in s com e p re s s in g ro u n d us?” T ozan sa id , (iI m y s e lf cam e fr o m u n d e r th e r o o f o f a fa m ily .” 17 T h e m o n k sa id , €

17. Tozan has been thinking his own thoughts, forgetting the dying monk. 102 Tozan

S peak b u t one w o rd to m e o v e r th e c o rn , O v e r th e te n d e r, b o w ^ lo c k s o f th e c o rn .

^ R e tu rn to th e a b s o lu te , to n a tu re , to th e undifferentiat­ ed, w h e re y o u s h o u ld h a ve been a ll y o u r lif e l" says T 6za n to th e d y in g m an . “ Y o u d ie d w e ll,” T 6za n te lls th e seated corpse, “ b u t in y o u r lif e y o u d o u b te d and dichotomised, y o u se p a ra te d y o u rs e lf fro m y o u r fa m ily in th o u g h t, in s te a d o f re a lis in g th a t in life , as in dea th, a ll is one, a nd one is a ll.” 18 A c e rta in hea d m o n k a n sw e re d in n in e ty s ix v a rio u s w a ys b e fo re T 6za n a ccepted it , s a y in g , “ W h y d id n ’t y o u say so b e fo re ? ” T h e re w as a n o th e r m o n k w h o h e a rd a ll th e o th e r answ ers, b u t d id n ’t ca tch th e la s t one. H e k e p t on a s k in g th e head m o n k a b o u t it , b u t h e w o u ld n o t t e ll h im . T h is s o rt o f th in g w e n t on fo r th e th re e ye a rs th e y w e re to g e th e r w ith th e ir water-basin and to w e l, b u t th e head m o n k s t ill re fu s e d to re v e a l i t to th e o th e r. A t la s t th e h ead m o n k f e ll i l l , and th e o th e r sa id to h im , “I h a v e asked y o u n o w fo r th re e ye a rs to t e ll m e w h a t y o u sa id . I do n o t n o w ask fo r p ity . I f I ca n ’t g e t i t b y fa ir m eans, I w i ll do so b y fo u l,” and, threatening h im w ith a k n ife , sa id , “ T e ll m e, o r I ’l l k i l l y o u V* T h e head m o n k sa id fe a r fu lly , “ W a it a m o m e n t, I ’l l t e ll y o u ! ” T h e n h e added, “ B u t even i f I do, y o u w o n ’t g e t w h a t y o u r e a lly w a n t !” T h e o th e r m o n k b ow ed . T h is is a v e ry c re d ib le s to ry , w h e th e r i t a c tu a lly h a p pe ne d o r n o t. T h e interesting p o in t is th a t w he n th e m o n k w as p ro m is e d w h a t he w a n te d , he d id n ，t w a n t i t a n y m o re , and w as enlightened. Enlightenment m eans n o t w a n tin g enlightenment a n y m o re , because y o u have it . T h u s te n g o ,転 語 ，“ tu rn in g w o rd ,” w h ic h th e o th e r m o n k w is h e d to be to ld , is n o t a w o rd e x p re s s in g th e tu rn in g , b u t th e v e ry tu rn in g its e lf. T h e w o rd is th e tu rn in g , and th e tu rn in g is th e w o rd . W h e n T ozan w as d y in g , a m o n k sa id to h im , ^M a ste r,

18. W e are seven. Death 103 y o u r fo u r elem ents19, 四 大 ，a re o u t o f h a rm o n y , b u t is th e re a n yo n e w h o is n e v e r il l? ” “ T h e re is ,” sa id T 6zan. “ Does th is one lo o k a t y o u ? ” asked th e m o n k . “ I t is m y fu n c tio n to lo o k a t h im ,” a n sw e re d T 6za n. “ H o w a b o u t w h e n y o u y o u rs e lf lo o k a t h im ? ” asked th e m o n k . “ A t th a t m o m e n t I see no illn e s s ,” re p lie d T 6za n. T h e a b so lu te , th a t is o u r re a l s e lf, is n e ith e r w e ll n o r i l l . H e is a lw a y s lo o k in g a t us, b u t i t is o u r jo b to lo o k a t h im , a nd w h e n w e do, as S t. J u lia n a d id a t th e “ w ra th o f G od,” w e say as she d id , “I saw no w ra th , b u t on m an’s p a r t.”

19. Earth, water, fire, and wind. Chapter XIV

SOZAN AND UNGO

S6zan (Ts‘aoshan)曹 山 ， fir s t s tu d ie d Confucianism, th e n becam e a p rie s t a t th e age o f n in e te e n . H e was ta u g h t b y T oza n, w ho se Z en he re c e iv e d and propagated. H e d ie d in 901, aged s ix ty tw o . H is enlightened d is ­ c ip le s w e re fo u rte e n . H e w as n o t so su cce ssfu l a te a ch e r n o r as g re a t m an as U n g o , h is fe llo w d is c ip le , b u t as a c o -fo u n d e r o f th e S o to S e ct o f Z en h e m u s t h a ve had c e rta in a b ilitie s o r m e t a c e rta in need, a nd h is F iv e R a n k s ,五 位 ，m ade h im fa m o u s. W h e n Sozan saw T oza n fo r th e fir s t tim e , he was asked h is nam e. “ H o n j a k u ( P e n c h i) 本 寂 he re p lie d . “ W h y d o n ’t y o u a n sw e r m e absolutely?” asked T6zan, “I w o n ’t , ” S6zan a n sw e re d . “ W h y n o t? ” sa id T6zan. “ Because m y nam e is n o t H o n ja k u ,” S6zan re p lie d . T ozan re co g n ise d S o za n ^ a b ilit y a nd p ro m ise . W h e n Sozan is asked h is n a m e he a nsw ers in th e r e la tiv e w o rld . In th e a b s o lu te w o rld even m y cat, le t a lo n e G od, is nam eless. B u t i t is o n ly th ose w ho k n o w th a t a ll th in g s a re n am eless, th a t can t r u ly g ive nam es to th in g s . S6zan w as ta k in g le a v e o f T 6za n, w h o asked h im , ‘W h e re a re y o u o ff to ? ” S6zan a n sw e re d , “ T o th e place w h e re n o th in g changes.Tozan sa id , uH o w can yo u go to such a p la ce ? ” Sozan a n sw e re d ,

I h e a r a m a n b lo w in g a h o rn th is s t ill e ve n in g , and i t sounds lik e th e p la in t o f n a tu re in th e se tim e s . In th is , w h ic h I r e fe r to som e m a n , th e re is s o m e th in g g re a te r th a n a n y m an .

A m o n k sa id to S6zan, “ C la s p in g th e ja d e to m y bosom , I th ro w m y s e lf u p o n y o u , a nd ask y o u to p o lis h i t ! ” S6zan sa id , “I w o n ，t ! ” T h e m o n k asked, ‘ "W hy p o t? ” S6zan sa id , “I w o u ld h a v e y o u k n o w th a t S6zan is v e ry s k i l f u l !’’ Kyuho 107

T h is conversation re fe rs to th e episode o f B e n k a .1 The m o n k asks Sozan to save h im . S6zan answ ers, “I am n o t fo o lis h e no ug h to th in k I, o r a n yo n e else, can be a s a v io u r o f m en. I am c le v e r e nough to k n o w th a t I can’t te a ch y o u a n y th in g . A n d d o n ’t y o u k n o w th a t C h ris t has d ie d fo r y o u a nd A m id a liv e s fo r y o u , and th a t y o u a re a lre a d y saved, ju s t as y o u a re ? ” A m o n k asked Sozan w h a t w as th e h o lie s t th in g in th e w o rld . Sozan a nsw e re d , UA dead c a t is th e m o s t sacred o f a ll th in g s .” “ In w h a t w a y ? ” asked th e m o n k . “ Because to p e o p le i t is invaluable,” a n sw e re d S6zan. Invaluable, v a lu e le ss, b e yo n d v a lu e . A r t, p o e try , re lig io n a re useless. A s illy co m m e n t is p e rh a p s th e best o f a ll. F u rth e r, w h a t p e o p le ju d g e as good is u s u a l­ ly w o rth le s s , so th e re v e rs e a p p lie s. A m o n k asked S6zan, “ W h a t is im m o rta l? ” T he answ er w as, “A w ith e re d tre e .” T h e n h e asked, “ W h a t is a Z en te a c h e r? ” S6zan a nsw ere d, “ Som eone w h o needs no h e lp .” A n o th e r m o n k re p o rte d th is co n ve rsa ­ tio n to K y u h o (C iu fe n g ) jiM ： ,1 2 w h o co m m e n te d , ^T h re e subordinates, s ix fo rm s .” “ T h re e subordinates” m eans th a t a w o m a n m u s t obey h e r fa th e r, th e n h e r h u sb a n d , th e n h e r son. “ S ix fo rm s ” are th e s ix k in d s o f C hin ese ve rse . K y u h o says th a t S6zan’s a nsw ers w e re as sm o o th a nd accommodating as a C hinese d a u g h te r, b rid e , a nd m o th e r w as supposed to be th ro u g h o u t h e r life , a nd interesting lik e th e d if ­ fe re n t v a rie tie s o f C hin ese p o e try . I m y s e lf h a ve as lit t le a d m ira tio n fo r S6zan’s answ ers as I h a ve fo r a w om an w ho obeys m en, o r fo r C hin ese p o e tics. A m o n k asked S6zan, “ W ho seizes th e s w o rd in th e w h o le c o u n try ? ” S6zan a nsw ere d, “ S 6zan.” T h e m o n k asked, ‘ *W hom a re y o u g o in g to k ill? ” “ J u s t e v e ry - b o d y,” sa id Sozan. “ S uppose y o u s h o u ld m e e t th e m o th e r and fa th e r w h o gave b ir th to y o u ? >, “ W h y

1. Pienho; see page 55. 2. A disciple of Sekiso. 108 Sozan and Ungo

particularise ?y* sa id S6zan. “ H o w a b o u t y o u rs e lf? ” asked th e m o n k. “ W h o is g o in g to do w h a t to m e?” sa id Sozan. “ W h y n o t k i l l y o u rs e lf? ” S6zan re p lie d , “ T h e re no p la ce fo r m y h a n d to do so.” A m an m u s t be th e m a ste r. H e m u s t say, as B u d d h a is supposed to h a v e sa id a t h is b ir th , “ B e tw e e n H eaven and E a rth , I a lo n e am th e H o n o u re d O n e !’’ T h e odd th in g is th a t a m a n can and m u s t dispose o f a ll o th e rs, even th ose n e a re st a nd d e a re st, and e s p e c ia lly those, b u t h e c a n n o t g e t r id o f h im s e lf, fo r o n ly h im s e lf is n o t b o rn , and c a n n o t d ie . K y 6 g e n (Hsiangygn)香 厳 ，（of th e N a n g a k u b ra n c h ) w as asked b y a m o n k , <4Wh a t is th e W a y? w H e an­ sw ered , d ra g o n s in g in g in a w ith e re d tre e .^ T he m o n k sa id , “I d o n ’t k n o w w h a t y o u a re ta lk in g a b o u t.” K y 6 g e n sa id , “ T h e p u p ils o f th e eyes o f a s k u ll.” A fte r ­ w a rd s , a n o th e r m o n k asked S ekiso, **W hat is th is ^dragon s in g in g in a w ith e re d tre e ’ ？” S ekisd said, “ I t is b e in g in v e s te d w ith jo y •” T h e m o n k th e n asked, “ W h a t is th is ‘p u p ils o f a s k u ll’ ？” S ekis6 sa id , “ I t is th e g a rm e n t o f w is d o m .” A g a in a m o n k asked Sozan w h a t th e d ra g o n s in g in g in th e w ith e re d tre e m e a n t, and h e an­ sw ered , <4Th e p td se does n o t sto p ,^ and to th e q u e stio n w h a t th e p u p ils o f th e s k u ll s ig n ifie d h e a nsw ere d, “ N o t q u ite d ry .” T h e m o n k asked, “ Is th e re a n yo n e w h o can h e a r th e d ra g o n s in g in g ? ” Sozan re p lie d , <4In a ll th e w id e w o rld th e re is n o t a s in g le p e rso n w h o does n o t h e a r i t !’’ T h e m o n k asked w ho se w o rd s th e y w ere. S6zan said, “I don’t know, but whoever hears them will lose h is life .” Sozan com posed a ve rse :

T he d ra g o n in th e w ith e re d tre e r e a lly sees th e W a y; T h e eyes o f th e s k u ll a bo ve a ll becom e c le a r. K n o w le d g e reaches its lim it, and th e re is n o th in g to say; W ho can distinguish th e p u re a m id s t th e im p u re ?

Jesus sa id he w as th e W a y. H e also sang fro m a w ith e re d tre e . B u t i t w as n o t a song o f jo y , b u t re ­ The Song of the Dragon 109

s ig n a tio n . T h e song o f th e d ra g o n is th e w in d b lo w in g th ro u g h th e dead b ra n ch e s a nd b rin g in g o u t th e lif e th a t is unexpectedly in th e m . T h e re is in v o lv e d h e re th e c o n tra s t b e tw e e n th e p a st, q u ie tn e s s ,正 ， o f th e w ith e re d tre e , a nd th e p re s e n t, m o v e m e n t,偏 ，o f th e d ra g o n ’s song. T h e tw o a re m u tu a lly r e la te d ,回 互 • T h e eyes o f th e s k u ll h a v e a s im ila r m e a n in g (n o t s y m b o l­ is m ). In th e M id d le A ges, as in a n c ie n t E g y p t, a s k u ll w as k e p t on th e ta b le , e s p e c ia lly d u rin g b a n q u e ts, to re m in d p e o p le o f d e a th . T h e eyes o f th e s k u ll w e re fix e d unwaveringly on th ose p re s e n t. B u t th e Z en w isd o m is n o t th a t o f th e remembrance o f d e a th , b u t o f th e oneness o f d e a th a nd life , g o in g and co m in g . S6zan’s answ er, “ T h e p u ls e does n o t s to p ,” m eans th a t th e re a l s e lf n e v e r d ie s, because i t is n o t b o m . “ N o t q u ite d r y ” has th e sam e m e a n in g . W a te r is n o t e n tir e ly w e t (th e re is a ir in i t ) . R o ck is n o t e n tir e ly d ry . N o th in g is e n tire ly dead， “ fo r u n t il H im a ll liv e .” N o th in g is e n tire ly liv in g ; p e rfe c tio n o f b e in g is a s ta tic c o n d i­ tio n . Sozan says th a t e v e ry o n e h e a rs th e d ra g o n sin g . T h o u g h th e y m a y n o t u n d e rs ta n d it , i t is < In so fa r as th e y liv e a t a ll, th e y liv e b y it . “ L ose h is lif e ” th u s m eans “ lose h is d e a th .” W h e n w e h e a r th e M a tth e w P assion w e d ie w ith C h ris t (a n d a re resurrected w ith h im ) . T h e verse, lik e a lm o s t a ll Z e n verses, is t r iv ia l, repetitive, unpoeticalj a nd un-Zen-like. U ngo ( Y iin g u ) S ® , w as th e c h ie f d is c ip le o f T ozan (o r D o z a n ). H e to o k o rd e rs a t th e age o f tw e n ty fiv e . W hen h e fir s t m e t T oza n, h e w as asked, **W hat is y o u r nam e?” H e a n sw e re d , “ D 6 y d ” （T a o y in g ) 道 膺 • T 6za n said, “ T e ll m e transcendentally!’’ U n g o re p lie d , “ S p e a kin g transcendentally, m y n a m e is D 6 y 6 .” T oza n said, ‘ *W hen I saw U n g a n , m y a n sw e r w as n o different.” U ngo re m a in e d w ith T o za n m a n y ye a rs. H e n e v e r h ad less th a n one th o u s a n d fiv e h u n d re d d is c ip le s , o f w h o m tw e n ty e ig h t w e re enlightened. H e d ie d in 902. T ozan sa id to U n g o , MAn icchantika, w h o k ills h is 1 1 0 Sozan and Ungo

fa th e r and m o th e r, causes b lo o d to flo w fro m th e b o d y o f a B u d d h a , b re a k s th e h a rm o n y o f th e congregation o f m o n ks,— h o w does h e in a n y w a y d is c h a rg e h is f ilia l d u tie s ? ” U ng o a n sw e re d , uB y so d o in g h e fir s t d is ­ charges h is f ilia l d u tie s .,> F ro m th is tim e , T oza n m ade U ng o th e head o f h is ro o m . T h e bad m a n is la c k in g in good a cts; h e is fre e o f goodness. So is th e ( r e a lly ) good m an . O rd in a ry p e o p le e x p la in th e Z e n te a c h in g , th a t w e m u s t k i l l th e B u d d h a , k i l l th e patriarchs, s a y in g , “ O f course, w e are n o t to do such te r r ib le th in g s , b u t___ ’’ T h is is n o t so. T o k i l l a B u d d h a o r a P a tria rc h spiritually is m uch m o re te r r ib le th a n to k i l l h im physically, and ind ee d m a y re s u lt in th e la tte r , since to re fu s e to be ta u g h t is to s ta rv e th e te a c h e r. Persecution, excommunication, th e Inquisition,—what is i t a ll b u t th e B u d d h a s and P a tria rc h s d e fe n d in g th e ir (p h y s ic a l) b re a d and b u tte r b y th e to r tu r e a nd d e a th o f th ose w h o a tta c k it? A n o ffic ia l sa id to U n g o : “ T h e World-honoured One h ad a se cre t m essage; Mahakasyapa d id n o t keep i t a s e cre t; w h a t is th is se cre t w o rd o f B u d d h a ? ” U ngo c a lle d to h im , “ Y o u r h o n o u r !’’ H e a nsw ere d, “ Yes?” U n g o said, “ Y o u understand?” “ N o ,” h e re p lie d . U ngo said, “ I f y o u d o n ’t understand, th a t is B u d d h a ’s secret w o rd ; i f y o u do, th a t is Mahakasyapa’s n o t k e e p in g it a s e cre t.” T h e p o in t o f th is s to ry is n o t U n g o ’s c le v e r a nsw er a t th e end, b u t h is c a llin g to th e o ffic ia l, and h is re sp o n d ­ in g . W h e n th e u n iv e rs e asks us a q u e s tio n , w e (m u s t) a n sw e r. T h is is a k in d o f Z en, and in th is sense, Zen is s im p ly e v e ry th in g th a t h appens. H o w e v e r, besides th is instinctive, “ n a tu ra l,” in e v ita b le Z en, th e re is a Zen w h ic h U n g o is tr y in g to re v e a l to th e o ffic ia l, th e con­ scious, w ille d , e v ita b le , super-natural Z en, th a t chooses as i t resp on ds, unpredictable a nd fre e . A m o n k asked U ng o, “ W h o is th e te a c h e r o f a ll th e B u d d h a s? ” U ng o sa id “ K w a tz !” and added, “ Y o u c a rt­ p u llin g b u m p k in , 田 庫 奴 ！” T h e m o n k m ade h is bow s. Soy 111

<4Ho w do y o u u n d e rs ta n d it? ” asked U n g o . T h e m o n k sa id “ K w a tz !，，a nd added, “ Y o u o ld a b b o t!” U n g o sa id , “Fundamentally, I d o n ’t understand!” T h e m o n k danced a ro u n d a nd w e n t o ff. U n g o e x c la im e d , b e g ­ g a r h a n g in g ro u n d th e fo o d -ta b le V1 T h e te a c h e r o f a ll th e B u d d h a s is th e ir o w n B u d d h a n a tu re , b u t w e do n o t r e a lly k n o w th is fa c t u n t il o u r ow n B u d d h a n a tu re teaches i t to us. I t is o f co urse a lw a ys te a c h in g us. T h e th in g s a ro u n d us do n o th in g else. B u t b e in g c a lle d , a n d a n s w e rin g , is a re m a rk a b ly c le a r, and a t th e sam e tim e p ro fo u n d e x a m p le o f th e w a y in w h ic h th in g s a re se p a ra te a n d y e t conterminous. T he m o n k asked a q u e s tio n . U n g o sa id , uY o u a re a fo o l V9 T h e m o n k sa id , “ So a re y o u !” （so is e v e ry b o d y , so is everything) • “ W h a t is th e m e a n in g o f ‘fo o l’ ?” asked U ngo. T h e m o n k danced. (Everything dances; th e u n iv e rs e is a d a n c e ). O ff h e w e n t, a nd U n g o p ra is e d h im , in h is absence, s a y in g , “ A fte r a ll, e v e ry b o d y is o u t to get s o m e th in g , th o u g h o f co urse Z en g e ttin g is a n o - g e ttin g .” U ngo asked T 6za n, ‘ W h a t is th e m e a n in g o f D a ru m a ’s co m ing fr o m th e W e st? ” T 6 za n s a id , “ In a fte r tim e s , yo u w i ll fe e l lik e p u ttin g s tra w o v e r y o u r hea d ! S u p ­ pose som eone asks y o u th e q u e s tio n , h o w w o u ld i t be?71 “I w as w ro n g ,” s a id U n g o . Z en m eans b e in g asham ed, resolutely, w h e n y o u h a v e done so m e th in g w ro n g . Z e n m eans fe e lin g p le a se d , r e ­ s o lu te ly , w h e n y o u a re p ra is e d . A s H a m le t a lm o s t sa id , “ T h e resoluteness ic a ll.” U ng o w as m ix in g so y. W h e n T o za n asked h im , w h a t he w as d o in g , h e sa id , “ M ix in g so y.” T 6 za n sa id , “ Y o u are u s in g a c e rta in q u a n tity o f s a lt? ” U n g o sa id , “ Yes, I ’m p u ttin g som e in .” T oza n sa id , “ I t ’s g o t a fin e fla v o u r? ” U n g o re p lie d , “ I t has.” W e u n d e rs ta n d th is conversation w h e n w e re m e m b e r h o w th e 5 th P a tria rc h asked th e 6 th , “ Is th e ric e re a d y ? ” and E no a n sw e re d , uR e a d y a lo n g tim e ago; o n ly w a it­ in g fo r th e sie v e .,> T h e “ r ic e ” is E n d ’s understanding 112 Sozan and TJngo of Zen, which only required th e “sieve” of K 6 n in ’s approbation. I n th e case o f U n g o a nd T 6 za n , th e soy， w h ic h is m ad e fro m a m ix tu r e o f b a rle y , beans, and s a lt, is a g a in th e v a rio u s e le m e n ts th a t com e to g e th e r to m a ke u p th e s im p le non-substance, Z en . O ne m ore q u e s tio n m a y be asked. W h y s h o u ld Z en, w h ic h is “ a d ir e c t p o in tin g to th e re a l h e a rt o f m a n ，’’ use in d ire c t­ ness? T h e a n s w e r m u s t be th e sam e as in th e case o f p o e try ; th a t p o e try , lik e Z en , n e v e r uses sym b o ls, ( fo r one th in g c a n n o t m ean a n o th e r th in g ) b u t d e lig h ts to p o in t o u t th e sam eness u n d e rly in g d iffe re n c e (a n d th e d iffe re n c e u n d e rly in g sam eness) th e m a k in g o f good soy a nd th e m a k in g o f a re a l m a n b e in g b o th th e sam e as a nd d iffe r e n t fro m each o th e r. A m o n k fro m S illa sa id to U ng o, “I h a ve s o m e th in g I ju s t ca n ’t say !” U ng o sa id , “ H o w can i t be d iffic u lt to say?” T h e m o n k sa id , “ T h e n w o n ’t y o u please e x ­ p ress i t fo r m e?” U n g o c rie d , “ S illa ! S illa !” A te a c h e r o f th e O ry u S ch o o l8 sa id , uU n g o w is h e d to see th e m o n k fro m S illa , b u t he w as oceans a w a y fro m h im .>, T h e K o re a n m o n k h ad ju s t becom e enlightened, and w a n te d som eone to express th e jo y h e fe lt. T h is shows th a t h is enlightenment w as s t ill half-baked. A n d in a v e ry characteristically K o re a n w a y h e g o t U ng o to do fo r h im w h a t h e s h o u ld h a v e done fo r h im s e lf. W hen U n g o sa id , “ K o r e a ! K o re a V9 h e w as e xp re ssin g th e m o n k ’s (unconscious) d e s ire to ta k e hom e to h is coun­ try m e n w h a t h e h a d re c e iv e d fro m C h in a . T he O ryu S ch o o l te a c h e r seems to o b je c t to th is to o h u m a n u n d e r­ s ta n d in g o f th e m o n k ’s s ta te o f m in d , a nd w o u ld say p e rh a p s th a t th e m o n k w as a lre a d y hom e, w as hom e fo r th e fir s t tim e , and th a t U n g o s h o u ld h a ve crie d , “ H u rra h ! H om e a t la s t !’ ’ o r, m o re v io le n tly , “ T o h e ll w ith K o re a , a nd th is dam ne d C h in a to o !” 3

3. One of the Seven Schools of Zen, it was founded by Enan (Huinan)慧南，1002-1069， a master of the Hinzai School. The oryil, 黄龍， and the Ydgi，福岐• were added to the original five. Breeches 113

One d a y U n g o h a d som e breeches ta k e n to a m o n k w h o liv e d in a h e rm ita g e , b u t th e m o n k re fu s e d th e m , sa yin g , “ T h e w o m a n w h o b o re m e g a ve m e som e breeches.” U n g o h a d a m essage ta k e n to th e m o n k a sk­ in g , 4, T h e m o n k s e n t b a c k n o a n sw e r. Afterwards, w h e n th e m o n k d ie d , a nd w as c re m a te d , s a rira w e re fo u n d , w h ic h w e re b ro u g h t to U n g o a n d sh o w n to h im . U n g o d e c la r­ ed, uE ve n i f a c a rtlo a d 4 ( o f s a rira ) h a d been fo u n d , i t w o u ld be n o th in g co m p a re d w ith th e a n sw e r to m y q u e s tio n !” Z en re q u ire s a c e rta in o b s tin a c y , as w e ll o f co urse as resilience. B o th U n g o a nd th e m o n k p e rs is te d in th e ir o w n a c tiv ity . U n g o h a d th e la s t w o rd , i t is tru e , b u t th e n th e m o n k w as dead a nd th e h o ly re lic s fo u n d in h is ashes c o u ld be r ig h t ly d ism isse d as a p io u s s u p e r­ s titio n . T h e m o n k re fu s e d U n g o 's c h a rity . H e w as b o rn w ith h is mother-given fle s h ly c o v e rin g on h is shanks, and th a t w as e no ug h. H e d id n o t w is h to be w a rm e d w ith U n g o ’s b ro th e r ly lo v e . U n g o h a d h is re v e n g e b y a skin g an unanswerable q u e s tio n , a nd w h e n th e m o n k was dead pooh-poohed h is re lic s a n d sa id th a t th e m o n k sh o u ld h a v e a n sw e re d h im , fo rg e ttin g th a t s ile n c e is also an a n sw e r, and d e a th th e a n s w e r to a ll q u e stio n s. A m o n k asked U n g o , “ M o u n ta in s a nd r iv e rs , th e g re a t earth,—where does i t a ll com e fro m ? ” “ F ro m d e lu s iv e imagination,M sa id U n g o . T h e m o n k sa id , “ W o n ’t y o u please im a g in e a p ie ce o f g o ld fo r m e?” U n g o g ave u p ; th e m o n k w as n o t re je c te d . T h e C hin ese co m m o n sense sees th ro u g h th e In d ia n sophistication. M o s t is im a g in e d , m u c h fo o lis h ly , b u t some th in g s , lik e m o u n ta in s a nd r iv e r s a nd p ieces o f g old, a re th e re , o r n o t.

4. Literally, “ 8 hu and 4 tou.” Chapter X V

UMMON I

I f w e ju d g e o f th e w o rth o f a Z e n m a s te r b y th e n u m ­ b e r o f anecdotes to ld o f h im , fo r th is rea son also U m m on (Y iin m e n )雲 P5, w ill to p th e lis t, w ith n e a rly tw o h u n ­ d re d in Z e n m o n K 6 a n T a is e i. U m m o n w as c le v e r fro m a c h ild . W h e n h e re a lis e d th e id e a o f th e O b a ku Sect, he cam e to see B o k u jii ( M u c h o u ) 睦 州 ，a d is c ip le o f R in z a i. U m m o n k n o c k e d a t th e gate, and B o k u ju asked, “ W h o is it? ” “ B u n -e n (W enyen).’’ “ W h a t is i t yo u w a n t? ” UI w a n t to u n d e rs ta n d m y s e lf. P lease teach m e !” B o k u ju opened th e gate , g la n ce d a t h im and sh u t i t a g a in . T h is w e n t on fo r th re e days, b u t on th e th ir d d a y, w h e n th e d o o r opened, U m m o n p ush ed h is w a y in . B o k u ju seized h im and sa id , uS ay s o m e th in g ! Say something!’’ U m m o n d id n ’t k n o w w h a t to do, and B o k u ju , c a llin g h im , 4

1. It is said that when one of the Emperors built a huge castle, a large clumsy gimlet was used, but could not be employed after­ wards, and so the word *'gimletM is used in exactly the opposite way to the English. 2. Ummon no doubt thought enlightenment worth a broken leg, but what shall we say of Bokuju's Zen clumsiness? A dried shit-stick 115 tio n and p ra c tic e . U m m o n is particularly fa m o u s fo r a one-syllable Z en , one (C h in e s e ) w o rd in a n s w e r to a q u e s tio n h o w e v e r le n g th y . A m o n k asked U m m o n , “ W h a t is th e B u d d h a ? ” U m m o n re p lie d , “A d rie d s h it- s tic k .” T h is fo rm s th e 21st Case o f th e M vm onkan. P ieces o f w oo d w e re used as to ile t p a p e r in C h in a . W h e n th e s u p p ly o f n e w ones ra n o u t, p e o p le w o u ld p ic k u p used o ld d ry ones, th u s in c re a s in g in fe c tio u s diseases, and b y n a tu ra l s e le c tio n m a k in g th e C h in e se a d ise ase - re s is ta n t ra ce . I t w o u ld h a ve been m o re scientific, th o u g h less p o e tic , i f U m m o n h a d s a id th a t th e B u d ­ dha, th a t is, m a n , is th e s h it on th e s tic k . B u t U m m o n ’s in te n tio n is a l i t t le m o re complicated. H e w a n ts to p o u r s h it on Das Heilige fo r one th in g , b u t h e does n o t w is h to say a n y th in g pantheistic o r panhumanistic. H e w ishes th e q u e s tio n e r to be s a tis fie d w ith h is q u e s tio n . T h a t is th e a r t o f liv in g in th is w o rld .

S h o u ld th e su n a nd m o o n n o t d o u b t, W e c o u ld n e v e r th in k th in g s o u t.

A m o n k a sked U m m o n “ W h a t is i t th a t surpasses th e B uddhas, surpasses th e Patriarchs?” U m m o n re p lie d , “ B u ns.” T he B u d d h a s a nd th e P a tria rc h s a re th in g s o f th e m in d , ju s t lik e g e n e ra ls a nd p rim e m in is te rs a nd p o lic e ­ m en, b u t b u n s a re re a l, b u n s a re e a rn e s t; th e y h a v e a sim plicity, a p e rfe c tio n o f b e in g w h ic h n o m a n can a tta in to . Jesus ta u g h t us to p ra y fo r o u r d a ily b un s. T h e y a re also th e s p ir itu a l B o d y o f C h ris t, b ro k e n fo r us. A b o v e a ll, b u n s a re s o m e th in g w h ic h B u d d h a s and gods a nd sages a re n o t (e x c e p t unintentionally); th e y are h u m o ro u s. A m o n k asked U m m o n , “ W h a t is th e p la c e w h e re a ll th e B u d d h a s m a n ife s t themselves?” U m m o n sa id , “ T h e E a ste rn M o u n ta in flo w s o v e r th e w a te r.” T h e Z en m a ste rs h a v e to m a ke th e ir d is c ip le s a n ti­ intellectual a nd m aterialistic, y e t transcendental. T h a t 116 Ummon buns are better than Buddhas was taught in the anecdote before. In this one, mountains move. Faith, as Christ said, moves them. Buns evaporate into thin air, un- biteable. U m m o n sa id , “ D o y o u w a n t to k n o w th e patriarchs?” P o in tin g w ith h is s ta ff, he sa id , “ T h e p a tria rc h s a re a ll o v e r y o u r heads, d a n c in g a b o u t. I f y o u w a n t to k n o w th e eyes o f th e patriarchs, th e y a re a ll u n d e r y o u r fe e t.J, T h e n h e w e n t on, “ Y o u g iv e th e h u n g ry s p ir its te a and ric e , b u t th e y a re n o t s a tia te d .” The Bible says, “God is love.” This is all right, but it should have said, with Tolstoy, “Love is God.” Love of the earth, love of the sky, that is enough. Picking out this, and choosing that for love, it is an eternal task to please these half-gods. Whatever it is, take it, for God offers it, God offers himself in it, God is your taking it. A monk asked Ummon, “What is the meaning of Daruma’s coming from the West?” Ummon said, “We see the mountains in the sun.” “Daruma’s coming from the West” means the coming into the world of Zen. Zen is the (proper) seeing of the mountains bathed in sunshine. A monk asked Ummon, “How was it before Gozu saw the 4th Patriarch?”8 “Kanzeon in each house.” “How about after he saw him?” “A tiger eating a centipede in the fire.” Before we understand Zen we think of peace of mind, Buddhist compassion, Wordsworth’s quiet eye, gentle Jesus, meek and mild. After we understand it, it is as Ummon says: “I am not come to bring peace, but a sword.” “The Lord God is a man of War.” A monk said to Ummon, “What is it, Buddha，s teach­ ing periods in his life-time?” Ummon replied, “Against, one, explanation.”

Chigi (C h ii)智 顗 ， 538-597, founder of the Tendai

3. See page 11. The Nirvana Virtues 117

S ch oo l in C h in a , sta te d th a t th e re w e re fiv e p e rio d s in th e B u d d h a ’s te a c h in g ,五 時 八 敎 ，4 corresponding to th e K e g o n , A g o n , H o to , H a n n ya , a nd H o k k e S u tra s . T h e “ a g a in st, one, explanation,” m ig h t m ean explanation o f th e O ne, o r, one explanation o p p o sin g , o r, a b o u t one explanation. T h e m o n k w as p ro b a b ly a T e n d a i m o n k , and w a n te d to ask a b o u t th e development o f B u d d h is m , th e g ra d u a l re v e la tio n o f tr u th . Z en has maintained, w ith a correctness th a t is p ro b a b ly unhistorical, th a t tr u th k n o w s no in c re a s e o r decrease, a nd has th e im ­ m o r ta lity o f th e b e a u ty o f C le o p a tra . U m m o n ’s w o rd s h ave n o t a d ic tio n a ry m e a n in g , b u t p o in t to th e a b so lu te , th e tim e le s s a nd p la cele ss. T h is a ne cdo te fo rm s th e 1 4th Case o f th e Hekiganroku; th e in te r ­ p re ta tio n is E n g o ^ . U m m o n asked th e hea d m o n k , 4

4. Five periods, and eight kinds of doctrine. 118 Ummon ity there was the Holy Grail. But, as Wordsworth stated, and proved by examples, value is more accessible in the ordinary, common things of everyday life. So Ummon uses a cup to preach with; his hymn of praise is the note the cup sends out when it is struck. A m o n k asked U m m o n ，“ H o w a b o u t w h e n th e w o rd is u tte re d th a t expresses a ll th in g s ? ” U m m o n said, “ T e a rin g d o w n ，b re a k in g u p !” These enigmatic laconisms are not mere encourage­ ments to a state of non-thought. They are exact replies to exact questions. These questions all boil down to, what is the state, what is the activity of Zen? The answer is that morality, beauty, truth, Christ, Buddha, the Matthew Passion, the Com m edia, justice, the soul and its immortality or annihilation,—all disappear. If Ummon were living today and were asked “What is Zen?” he might answer, “Ten thousand million atomic bombs !’’ but would not mean that this is a spiritually disruptive force which will bring about a betterment of some kind. He would mean that Zen enables us to see things as they are, as they are becoming, without any judgement as to improvement or deterioration, or rather, seeing and being things as they are becoming is God, is Zen. All values are torn up, all standards are broken down. A monk asked Ummon, “What is the Dharmakaya?” Ummon answered, “The Six can’t get hold of it.” -T h e Dharmakaya，法 身 ， is the first of The Trikaya 二 身 ， The Three-fold Body of Buddha, the other two be­ ing The Sambhogakaya， 報 身 ， and The Nirmanakaya, 化 身 • The Dharmakaya is the essential nature of Buddha. The second is the Body of Bliss, which he uses for enjoyment; and the third the body of transformation by which he reveals himself. The Dharmakaya is the highest, the most spiritual of all, and the monk wants to know what it is, and what it is like. Ummon an­ swers that none of the Six can apprehend it. There are many sixes in Buddhist theology, for example the The Temple Post 119 Six R o o ts ,六根，eye, ear, nose, to n g u e , b o d y , m in d ; th e S ix S e n s e s ,六依，S ix E n tra n c e s ,六 入 ，S ix F ie ld s ,六境， S ix Misleaders,六 妄 ；th e re a re also th e S ix F e rrie s , 六度， c h a rity , k e e p in g th e commandments, p a tie n c e , zeal, meditation, w is d o m ; S ix W is d q m s ,六 慧 ，S ix M a g ic a l P o w e rs ,六 神 通 • N on e o f th ese can e n a b le us to a tta in to Buddhahood. T h e re la tiv e can b y n o m eans becom e th e a b so lu te . “ E ye h a th n o t seen, n o r e ar h e a rd ___ ’’ J u s t as e v e ry th in g else in th e w o rld is m ira c le , so is o u r s a lv a tio n , w h e th e r b o rn o r a c q u ire d . A m onk: sa id to U m m o n ， “ W h a t is P u re T ru th ? ” U m m o n a n sw e re d , “A flower-bed.” T h e m o n k w e n t on, “ A n d w h e n i t is d iffe r e n t fro m th is ? ” “ A g o ld e n - hairedlion,” Ummonreplied. “ P u re ” m eans “ b e yo n d p u r it y a nd im p u r ity ,” b e yo n d tr u th and e rro r. F lo w e rs g ro w in g u n d e r th e hed ge in a ll th e ir w ild p ro fu s io n , b o rn to b lu s h unseen and w a s te th e ir sw eetness on th e d e s e rt a ir — th ese a re , n o t s ym b o ls o f n a tu re , b u t n a tu re its e lf, p u re n a tu re . B u t th is is a so m e w h a t p a ssive fo rm o f N a tu re . T h e re is a m o re a c tive , lo r d ly aspect, th e K in g o f B easts w ith h is y e llo w m ane b r is tlin g , m o n a rc h o f a ll h e su rv e y s . A m o n k asked U m m o n , “ W h a t m an on e a rth can u n d e rs ta n d B u d d h is m ? ” U m m o n a nsw e re d , 4

A fe a th e r o r a s h e ll T h e b e st o f us e xce l.

T h is c a llin g th e m o n k a to a d is p ra is in g h im to o h ig h ly , and b e littlin g th e to a d . T he fo llo w in g is a continuation o r c o ro lla ry o f th e p re ce d in g . U m m o n s a id , “ A ll y o u m o n ks ro a m a b o u t a ll o v e r th e e a rth on Z e n pilgrimages, b u t y o u d o n ’t k n o w th e m e a n in g o f D a ru m a ^ c o m in g fro m th e W est. T he o u ts id e p o s t k n o w s i t a ll r ig h t. W h y d o n ’t y o u som ehow fin d o u t th e p o s t’s k n o w le d g e o f th a t m e a n - Chrysanthemums, by Sengai

T h is is a 31 s y lla b le w a k a in tw o p a rts , 17 and 14:

此 花 S: 含 < 〜 t 耳 屯 紅 U 、阿 !）t 办 屯 甘 f

T h is flo w e r is c a lle d [Chrysanthe] m u m , Because i t has no m o u th . Y o u h a ve le a ve to say i t has lea ves, B u t I w o u ld as lie f n o t b e lie v e i t

W h a t S e ng a i a c tu a lly says is th a t th e flo w e r is c a lle d kiku, chrysanthemum; k ik u , 聞 < , m eans to h e a r] b u t i t has no ears. F u rth e r, th a t th o u g h i t has leaves [葉 ，h a ; h a , 齒 ，m eans te e th ] i t ca n ’t e at. T h is p la y in g w ith w o rd s , b e lo ve d o f S hakes­ peare, L a m b , T h o re a u , H ood, a nd th e p re s e n t w r ite r , is y e t a n o th e r fo rm o f “ B y m e re p la y in g go to th e H e a ve n .” “ L ife is re a l, life is e a rn e s t,” a nd w o rd s a re supposed to be th e sam e. T h is is th e m is ta k e w h ic h Z en d e sire s to r e c tify .

120 Ummon

in g ? A n y w a y , I ’l l t e ll y o u i t m y s e lf: n in e tim e s n in e is e ig h ty one.” W h e n stu d e n ts asked m e th e m e a n in g o f th e a b so lu te , a s s e rtin g th a t a ll th in g s a re re la tiv e , I used to w rite on th e b la c k b o o d 2 x 2 = 4 , w h ic h o f co u rse m ig h t n o t be tru e , th a t is, a b s o lu te , in som e o th e r w o rld , b u t w h a t w e w a n t is s o m e th in g a b s o lu te in th is w o rld . Z en is th e thusness o f th in g s , mathematical n o less th a n m a te ria l, m a te ria l no less th a n m e n ta l. A m o n k asked U m m o n , “ W h a t is th e p re c is e m e a nin g o f S 6 ke i? ” U m m o n said, “ T h is o ld m o n k lik e s anger, lik e s jo y .” “ H o w is th is ? ” asked th e m o n k . “ W hen yo u m e e t a swordsman,” sa id U m m o n , “ m e e t h im w ith a s w o rd . D o n ’t o ffe r a poem to a n yo n e b u t a p o e t.” “ S 6 k e i” m eans E n6, th e S ix th P a tria rc h , w h o liv e d th e re . U m m o n 's fir s t a n sw e r has l i t t l e d ire c t connec­ tio n w ith E no. Z en m eans lik in g w h a t y o u ( re a lly ) lik e , w h a t y o u r (re a l) n a tu re lik e s , in U m m o n ’s case, a ng er, th e sine w s o f th e so u l, a nd jo y , its w in g s . H e re m in d s us o f N ie tzsch e , B la k e , a nd o f D.H. L a w re n ce . T he n U m m o n, as so o fte n , says th e o p p o site , o r ra th e r th e o bve rse o f w h a t he sa id b e fo re . O u r re la tio n s w ith o th e rs a re g o ve rn e d b y th e ir n a tu re . W e a re an echo, th e ch am ele on p oe t, a ll th in g s to a ll m en, k illin g w ith those w h o k ill, u n p o e tic a l w ith th o se w h o are u n - p o e tic a l. T h is is L a w re n c e ^ ambivalent, b a la n ce d a t­ titu d e in re g a rd to lo v e . O n th e one h a n d th e re is (p o e try to th e p o e t) b u t on th e o th e r w e are o u rse lve s, m aintaining th e in te g r ity o f o u r o w n ego and its e xp a n sio n and g ro w th . So w ith flo w e rs , w e a llo w th e m th e ir life , b u t w e h a ve th e r ig h t to p lu c k th e m (th is is th e a n g e r and jo y ) i f and w h e n w e w ish . M eans a re ends, and ends a re m eans. T h is is th e te a c h in g o f th e S ix th P a tria rc h . A m o n k asked U m m o n , “ H o w can w e a v o id th e a d ve n t o f lif e and d e a th ? ” U m m o n sa id , “ W h e re a re yo u ? ” F o r s o m e th in g to com e to us, w e m u s t be in a fix e d p la ce. I f w e a re g o in g to ru n a w a y, w e m u s t ru n aw a y Repentance 121

fro m so m e w h e re . D.H. L a w re n c e says in Kangaroo th a t o u r tr u e h om e is e te r n ity a nd n o w h e re . I f th is is so, n e ith e r lif e n o r d e a th can re a ch us. (I am n o t su re th a t U m m o n is q u ite r ig h t, b u t th a t is w h a t he s a y s ). A m o n k sa id to U m m o n , uI f a m a n k ills h is fa th e r, k ills h is m o th e r, he m a y re p e n t b e fo re th e B u d d h a . I f he k ills th e B u d d h a , k ills a p a tria rc h , w h e re can he re p e n t? ” U m m o n a n sw e re d , “ Q u ite !’’ T h is is an e x a m p le o f th e one-syllable re p lie s fo r w h ic h U m m o n is ju s t ly fa m o u s. R o ! ( L u !) 露 ，m eans “expressed,” “ c le a r,” “ n o th in g h id d e n ,” a nd corresponds v e ry w e ll to th e E n g lis h id io m a tic use o f “ Q u ite !” W h a t U m m o n m eans is th a t th e q u e s tio n is a v e ry good one, th a t is, i t is rhetorical. S u ch a m a n has no p la ce to re p e n t, n o w h e re to re p e n t; h e ca n ’t re p e n t. W h a t w e can’t do, w e s h o u ld n ’t do. A s T h o re a u says, “ N a tu re n e v e r apologises.” D ogs fa w n , lik e m en , b u t a c a t ju s t lic k s its e lf in th e c o rn e r w h e n sla p p e d . O ne d a y U m m o n , o p e n in g th e gate , saw a m o n k co m ­ in g , a nd immediately asked h im , <4W h a t w i ll y o u do w h e n y o u a re n o t liv in g fr e e ly and spaciously?” T h e m o n k w as s ile n t. U m m o n sa id , “ Asfc m e !’’ a nd w h e n th e m o n k d id so, U m m o n w a g g le d h is h an ds and c rie d , “ Com e, com e, o ld Shakamuni!” T o ke ep h is d ig n ity is th e le a s t c o n ce rn o f a tru e te a ch e r, w h o m u s t h a v e m o re ze a l th a n th e p u p il, and a tta c k , n o t d e fe n d . T h e in te n s e s t d e v o tio n to , a nd th e closest fam iliarity w ith each a nd e v e ry th in g 一 th is is w h a t U m m o n is teaching—is re a l liv in g . A m o n k asked U m m o n , “ W h e n n o t a th o u g h t a rises, can th e re be a n y th in g w ro n g ? ” U m m o n sa id , “ M o u n t S u m e ru !” M o u n t S u m e ru is th e c e n tra l m o u n ta in o f e v e ry w o rld . A t its to p is In d r a ’s h e a ve n . B e lo w i t a re th e fo u r d e v a lo k a s , a nd a ro u n d i t e ig h t c irc le s o f m o u n ta in s w ith th e e ig h t seas. U m m o n does n o t a n s w e r th e m o n k ’s q u e s tio n ; h e h im s e lf is th e q u e s tio n . “ N o t a th o u g h t 122 Ummon

a ris in g in m e, a nd I am in P a ra d is e , th a t is, in th e u n iv e rs e , liv in g on th e to p o f th e w o r ld !” A m o n k s a id to U m m o n , “ W h e n a ll m e n ta l a c tiv ity is a t an end, h o w is it? ” U m m o n sa id , “ B rin g th e Buddha-Hall h e re , a nd w e ’l l w e ig h i t to g e th e r !” T he m o n k sa id , “ A re n ’t y o u g e ttin g a w a y fro m th e p o in t? ” U m m o n e x c la im e d , “ T o ts u !” （Tu !) ，a nd th e n sa id , “ Y o u p lu n d e re r o f v a c u ity “ F a ith can m o ve mountains,” U m m o n says, b u t th e m o n k is th in k in g in abstractions, n o t concretely. “A p lu n d e re r o f v a c u ity ,> m eans a m in d w ith o u t im a g in a ­ tio n , w ith o u t th e p o w e r to see b ig th in g s as s m a ll, to h o ld in f in ity in th e p a lm o f th e h a n d . B u t, w e m u s t re m in d U m m o n , w e c a n n o t im a g in e th in g s a w a y, o r non-existent th in g s in to e xiste n ce . A w a ll is a w a ll, n o t a d o o r. Y o u can’t e a t n o th in g a nd liv e . U m m o n sa id to th e assem bled m o n ks, “ H e a rin g th e sound, p e rc e iv in g th e W a y ; se eing th e c o lo u r, e n lig h te n ­ in g th e m in d . T h e Bodhisattva K a n ze o n b rin g s some cash and b u ys som e ric e cakes. L e ttin g th e m go, th e y a re seen to be dumplings.” “ H e a rin g th e sound, p e rc e iv in g th e W a y ,” re fe rs to K y 6 g e n (Hsiangyen)香 嚴 ，w h o becam e enlightened on h e a rin g a sto ne s tr ik e a b am boo w h ile h e w as sw eep­ in g . “ S eeing th e c o lo u r, enlightening th e m in d ,” re g a rd s R e iu n ( L in g y iin ) 霊 雲 ，w h o cam e to a realisation on seeing th e flo w e rs o f a p lu m tre e . O n th e o th e r hand, K a n n o n does a k in d o f c o n ju rin g t r ic k w ith cakes. T he m e a n in g is th a t as a re s u lt o f h e a rin g th e sound o f a sto ne h ittin g a b am boo, o r se eing a b lo s s o m in g tre e , w e a re a b le to p e rfo rm th e m o s t o rd in a ry ta sks in a m ira c u lo u s w a y . H a te fu l th in g s becom e c h a rm in g ; o diou s th in g s becom e indifferent; d u s t becom es g o ld , and g o ld becom es d u s t,— a ll a t w ill, a nd fo r a fe w pence, a fe w pensees. A m o n k asked U m m o n , wW h a t is y o u r traditional w a y of teaching Zen?” Ummon said, “Outside the gate there are learners; tell them to come in !，， M oo! 123

T h is m eans th a t U m m o n co n sid e re d h im s e lf to b e a te a ch e r, n o m o re , no less. T h e sam e q u e s tio n w ith a d iffe r e n t a n sw e r,— A m o n k asked, ‘ *W ha t is y o u r te a c h in g tradition?” “ I t n e v e r ra in s b u t i t p o u rs .” T h e m o n k asked, “ W h a t do y o u m ean, ‘L o n g r a in does n o t c le a r u p ’ ？’’ U m m o n sa id , “ I t d rie s th e w a ve s.” “ T h in g s n e v e r ch an ge ,” says U m m o n a t fir s t. “ A ll th in g s c o n tin u e as w h e n o u r fa th e rs f e ll asleep.^ T h e n he says th a t a ll is m ira c le , topsyturvy, inconsequential, a ta le to ld b y an id io t; th e lo n g r a in d rie s u p th e w aves o f th e sea. A m o n k asked, “ H o w a b o u t w h e n th e w in d does n o t pass th ro u g h th e s e c re t ro o m ? ” “ I t tre m b le s in th e dew , and sounds in th e b re e ze ,” re p lie d U m m o n . “ H o w a b o u t th e p e o p le in th a t ro o m ? ” U m m o n sa id , “ I t ’s n o t easy to ta lk o f th e sam e th in g tw ic e V9 “ T h e w in d n o t p a ssin g th ro u g h th e se c re t ro o m ” m eans th a t m a s te r a nd d is c ip le a re in c o m p le te u n io n and u n a n im ity . I t is as n a tu ra l as th e d e w on th e le a f, and th e s o u g h in g w in d . B u t i f w e go on e n d le s s ly a s k in g , w h e n th e q u e s tio n has bee n a n sw e re d once and fo r a ll___ O ne d a y U m m o n asked, “ H o w can w e m a ke o u r re lig io n p ro p e r? ” A n s w e rin g h im s e lf, h e sa id , “ M oo !’’ T h is has p e rh a p s tw o m e a n in g s: fir s t, w e ca n ’t ; second, w e can, b u t o n ly b y p u re ly a n im a l m e th o d s. A cow strengthens its lu n g s , a nd a d v e rtis e s its cow ness b y m o o in g . I t m oos its e lf in to b e in g a co w . N o m oo, no co w ; no cow , n o m oo, so th e c h ild re n r ig h t ly c a ll i t a m o o -co w . Z e n m u s t be th e sam e. A m o n k asked U m m o n , ‘ *W ha t a re th e activities, 行，o f a S ra m a n a ,沙 門 ？ U m m o n a n sw e re d , “I h a ve n o t th e s lig h te s t id e a .” T h e m o n k th e n sa id , ‘*W hy h a v e n ’t y o u a n y id e a ? ” U m m o n re p lie d , “I ju s t w a n t to ke ep m y n o -id e a .” A sra m a n a is a m o n k , an enlightened m o n k . T h e S a n s k rit ro o t o f th e w o rd is sra m , to m a ke e ffo rts , to do 124 Ummon

austerities. T h is m o n k ’s q u e s tio n is n o t so m u ch “ W h a t s h a ll I do to be saved?” as “ W h a t does a m a n do w h e n he is saved?” U m m o n ’s a n sw e r m a y be interpreted in m a n y w a ys. “I k n o w , b u t I d o n ’t w a n t to sa y.” “I r e a lly d o n ’t k n o w .” “I w a n t to te a ch y o u n o t to k n o w .” “ M y s ta te o f m in d is b e yo n d k n o w in g a nd n o t k n o w ­ in g .” “ Y o u a re p e s te rin g m e !” ^ P e rfe c t a c tio n is u n ­ conscious o f its e lf.” “ D o n ’t ask (fo o lis h ) questions!’’ A ll these to som e e x te n t e n te r in to h is w is h n o t to f a ll in to th e deadness o f k n o w in g so m e th in g . A fte r w e a re enlightened, w h a t s h a ll w e do? W e a re in th e same p o s itio n as th e s a in ts in H e a ve n p la y in g on th e ir g olden h a rp s ad nauseum . A m o n k asked U m m o n , “ W h a t k in d o f m a n is he w ho has p e rfo rm e d th e su p re m e austerities?” U m m o n said, “A tu b in th e h a n d !” T h is a n sw e r is in te n d e d to sto p th e m o n k th in k in g and ta lk in g a b o u t C h ris t a nd B u d d h a , and com e back to re a l life . A m o n k sa id to U m m o n , “ H o w a b o u t a m an whose p a re n ts w o n ’t le t h im be a p rie s t? ” “ S h a llo w !” said U m m o n. “I am n o t uneducated, b u t I d o n ’t understand.” “ D eep !” sa id U m m o n . W hen w e te ach , w e te a ch o u rse lve s. I f th e s tu d e n t also understands so m e th in g , th a t^ fin e , b u t i t is u n lik e ly . “ S h a llo w ” m eans th e q u e s tio n is s h a llo w , and th e m an w h o w ill n o t “ H a te fa th e r and m o th e r fo r m y sake” is s h a llo w . “ D eep” m eans th a t to be tro u b le d a b o u t a q u e stio n is deep; n o t to k n o w is (potentially) deep. Chapter XV I

UMMON II

A m o n k asked U m m o n ，“ W h a t is fre e m u tu a l good relations?” U m m o n s a id ， “ D o n ’t c a ll th a t s le e p in g - p la ce a sleeping-place l" T h e m o n k sa id , “ H o w a b o u t bad relations?” U m m o n sa id , “ I t ’s a sle e p in g p la c e !’’ “ To m in g le w ith th e u n iv e rs e ” as B y ro n sa id , and w ith a ll th e p e o p le in it , w h ic h B y ro n c o u ld n o t do, can be done b y lo o k in g a t th e o th e r h a lf o f th in g s and persons, b y w h ic h ic e is h o t a nd o n e ^ e n e m y lo v a b le . I f w e w a n t to h a v e b ad re la tio n s w ith e v e ry th in g and e v e ry b o d y w e s h o u ld ta k e a s q u e a k in g d o o r to be irritating, a nd a h y p o c rite as disgusting. B u t s tr ic tly sp ea kin g, th in g s a nd persons a re b o th w h a t th e y seem to be and w h a t th e y seem n o t to be, a nd good re la tio n s and bad re la tio n s a re e q u a lly interesting, o r s h a ll w e ra th e r say, each one is m o re interesting th a n a n y o th e r. U m m o n w as asked b y a m o n k , “ W h a t is th e d u s t- sa m a dh i? ” U m m o n re p lie d , “ R ic e in th e b o w l, w a te r in th e tu b .” T h e “dust-samadhi” m eans th e su p re m e s ta te in w h ic h each th in g is in te rfu s e d w ith each o th e r a nd w ith o urselve s. T o p u t i t in a s im p le w a y , “ I t ’s (universally interpenetrated) lo v e th a t m akes th e w o r ld (w h e e l o f th e L a w ) go ro u n d .” U m m o n says, “ R ic e is in th e b o w l, w a te r is in th e tu b , G o d ’s in h is H e a ve n , a ll’s r ig h t w ith th e w o r ld .” U m m o n asked a m o n k , “ A r e y o u th e g a rd e n e r? ” “ Y es,” h e sa id . “ W h y h a v e tu rn ip s no ro o ts ? ” h e asked th e m o n k , w h o c o u ld n o t re p ly . “ B ecause,” sa id U m m o n , “rain-water is plentiful.” T h is pseudo-scientific a n s w e r b y U m m o n , w h o no d o u b t has h is to n g u e in h is ch ee k, is p re c is e ly th a t o f 126 XJmmon th e scientists, w h o e x p la in h o w a g ira ffe g o t its lo n g n e ck, b u t c a n n o t e x p la in w h y e v e ry o th e r a n im a l has n o t a lo n g n e ck. A monk said to Ummon, “I ask you, master, to deliver a learner from darkness and illusion quickly ! Ummon said, “What’s th e price of rice in J 6 s h ii? ’’ T h e m o n k w a n te d to be d e liv e re d fro m th e b o d y o f th is fle sh in to a s p ir itu a l re a lm . U m m o n w a n ts to p u t th e m o n k m o re d e e p ly in to th e d a rkn e ss o f tra d e and fo o d a nd competition. T h e deepness is a ll. ” U m m o n asked a m o n k , “ W h e re h a v e y o u com e f r o m : ’ “ F ro m N a n g a k u ,” he re p lie d . “ U s u a lly ,” sa id U m m o n , “I don’t e n ta n g le p e o p le w ith w o rd s , a nd b a m b o o zle th e m w ith p hrase s; com e a lit t le clo s e r r T h e m o n k w e n t n e a re r, and U m m o n sh o u te d , “ B e o ff w ith y o u !’’ We are always taken in w ith apparent kindness, and e q u a lly w ith a p p a re n t rudeness. B u t to be su spiciou s o f e v e ry b o d y and e v e ry th in g is n o t th e s o lu tio n . T o be a d o ve a nd a s e rp e n t in one,—that’s it , b u t h o w d if f ic u lt ! U m m o n sa id to K e m p 6 , “ P lease g iv e m e a n a n sw e r !” K e m p 6 sa id , “ H a ve y o u been to see th e O ld M o n k y e t? ” “I ，m a b it la te ,” sa id U m m o n . “ O h, re a lly ? ” said K e m p 6 . “I th o u g h t I w as a ro b b e r,” sa id U m m o n , “ b u t y o u ’re a b rig a n d !” K e m p 6 w as a d is c ip le o f T 6za n ( R y d k a i) , and a close fr ie n d o f U m m o n ^ . H e re w e h a v e tw o C h ris ts , tw o B u d d h a s, tw o S ocrates ta lk in g to g e th e r, a nd n e ith e r w in s , n e ith e r loses. T o ask fo r an a n sw e r w ith o u t ask­ in g a question,—this is w h a t th e u n iv e rs e does to us. W ho is “ th e o ld M o n k ? ” P e rh a p s i t is B u d d h a , o r p e rh a p s th e Buddha-head. W e a re a lw a y s la te in e v e ry ­ th in g . T o be la te is h u m a n . S lo w b u t su re . S u re b u t s lo w . “ O h, r e a lly ? ” T h a t’s th e r ig h t a n sw e r fo r e v e ry ­ th in g , p o lite s u rp ris e . T o be a robber,_ that is th e a rt o f liv in g . T o g e t s o m e th in g fo r n o th in g is th e a im o f life , and U m m o n says to K e m p 6 , “ Y o u a re a b ig g e r ro b b e r th a n I; be m y fr ie n d T h is is T h o re a u ’s idea o f friendship. Nine 127

U m m o n sa id to th e assem bled m o n ks, “ I t is s a id th a t a fte r w e h a v e n o t seen som eone fo r th re e d ays w e m u s t lo o k a t h im a n e w ; w h a t do y o u a ll th in k a b o u t th a t? ” A n s w e rin g h im s e lf h e sa id , “A th o u s a n d .” E v id e n tly U m m o n h a d n o t seen th e m o n ks fo r s e v e ra l days, a nd w as lo o k in g a t th e m w ith d iffe r e n t eyes, b u t th e y gazed a t h im w ith th e ir u s u a l b la n k o r a m b itio u s o r inferiority-feeling faces, a nd h e w as constrained to w a rn th e m a g a in s t su ch complacency, indifference, o r e n m ity . “A th o u s a n d ,” is used in v a rio u s w a y s in B u d ­ d h ism . E ach o f th e p a st, p re s e n t, a n d fu tu r e k a lp a s has a th o u s a n d B u d d h a s. T h e lo tu s has a th o u s a n d p e ta ls. T h e T e n d a i S e ct has a th o u s a n d suchnesses, 千如是• K a n n o n has a th o u s a n d h an ds a nd a th o u sa n d eyes. U m m o n m eans b y h is exclamation th a t w e m u s t lo o k a t each thousand-minded m a n w ith o u r o w n thousand-mind. W e a re re m in d e d o f C h ris t’s “ S e v e n ty tim e s seven 1” A m o n k asked U m m o n , “ W h a t is th e O ne S u p re m e W a y? ” U m m o n sa id , “ N in e tim e s n in e is e ig h ty one.” T he m o n k sa id , “ T im e presses; I h a v e n o t y e t e n te re d th e ro a d ; p o in t i t o u t to m e !” U m m o n sa id , “ W h e n yo u g e t to th e v e ry fir s t im pression,機 ，th e re is th e W a y V9 U m m o n a n sw e rs th e m o n k in h is u s u a l e n ig m a tic and la c o n ic w a y . T h e re a re m a n y n in e s in B u d d h is m , m o st o f th e m w ith a b a d m e a n in g : th e n in e w o r ld s ,九世，su b ­ je c t to illu s io n ; th e n in e m a g ic a l characters, 九字， a g a in s t th e p o w e rs o f e v il; th e n in e meditations on a corpse, 九 想 ；th e n in e fo rm s o f p r id e ,九 慢 ；th e n in e b on ds, 九 結 ，th a t b in d m e n to th is w o r ld ; th e n in e classes o f g h o s ts ,九鬼• N in e is also is used in a good m e a n in g , b u t e ig h ty one is th e n u m b e r o f k in d s o f illu s io n , n in e grades in each o f th e n in e re a lm s o f d e s ire . U m m o n m a y be th u s im p ly in g th a t enlightenment is fo u n d in illu s io n and n o w h e re else, e s p e c ia lly n o t b y s e p a ra tio n fro m illu s io n , b u t i t is r a th e r th e inevitability ( o f th e a rith m e tic r e la tio n ) a t w h ic h U m m o n is p o in tin g . T h e 128 Ummon

m o n k ta ke s no n o tic e o f th is a n y w a y , a nd im p lo re s U m m o n to h e lp h im . U m m o n changes h is ta c tic s , and says k in d ly to h im , “ T r y a nd g e t to th e m in d y o u have b e fo re i t tu rn s in to a c tio n , th e p a in y o u fe e l b e fo re y o u g ru m b le a t w h a t o r w h o caused it , th e emotionless, thoughtless, n o n -m o ra l w o r ld o f a ll a r t a nd m u sic and p o e try a nd r e lig io n a nd lo v e and Z e n .” U m m o n asked a q u e s tio n : “ Is th e re a n y p o p u la r ta lk on th e w a y to S o k e i? >, H e a n sw e re d h im s e lf, “ T w o a t one tim e !” S o k e i is th e p la ce w h e re th e 6 th P a tria rc h ta u g h t. “ T w o th in g s ” is h u m a n b e in g s and B u d d h a , sameness a nd difference, y o u a nd I, th e m in d a nd th e M in d , th is w o rld a nd N irv a n a . W e say, g a z in g a t one a n o th e r in a w ild s u rm ise , th a t th ese p a irs o f th in g s a re one th in g . I t is a fo o lis h w a y o f ta lk in g , b u t i t passes th e tim e as w e w a lk . A m o n k sa id to U m m o n , “ W h a t is y o u r age, m a y I ask?” U m m o n re p lie d , “ S even tim e s n in e , s ix ty e ig h t.” T h e m o n k sa id , “ W h a t do y o u m ean, seven tim e s n in e , s ix ty e ig h t? ” U m m o n sa id , “I to o k o ff fiv e ye a rs fo r y o u r sake.” A n E n g lis h s c h o o l-b o y w as once c a u g h t e a tin g an a p p le in class. K e e p in g h is eye on h im , th e te ach er o rd e re d h im to th e fr o n t. “ W h a t a re y o u e a tin g ? ” “ N o th in g !” “ O pen y o u r m o n th !” In s e rtin g h is fin g e r p u lle d o u t a la rg e b it o f a p p le . “ W h a t，s th is ? ” “ A p p le , s ir.” “ H o w d id i t g e t in y o u r m o u th ? ” “ D id n ，t k n o w i t w as th e re , s ir !,f B o th U m m o n and th e boy sh ow th e ir d is re s p e c t fo r th e o th e r p a r ty b y te llin g an o b vio u s lie . ‘ U m m o n asked a m o n k , “ W h a t a re y o u ? ” H e re p lie d , “ I ’m th e he 巧d o f th e infirm ary.” “ Y o u d o n ，t m ean tci say so \yt sa id U m m o n . “ Is th e re a n y b o d y n o t ill? ” “I d o n ’t understand,” re p lie d th e m o n k . “ W h y c a n ，t y o u understand? W h y ca n ’t y o u understand?” said U m m o n. T h e m o n k w as s ile n t. “ A s k m e th e same q u e s tio n ,” sa id U m m o n . T h e m o n k sa id , “ W ho is th e Illness 129 m an w ith o u t a n y illn e s s ? ” U m m o n p o in te d to th e n e x t m o n k. U m m o n , lik e C h ris t a nd som e o th e r p e o p le , g o t tir e d o f te a c h in g d u ffe rs . A m o n k a lw a y s d e a lin g w ith i l l ­ ness a nd d e a th m ig h t b e e xp e cte d to h a v e a lit t le sense, b u t no, h e w as as b ad as th e b e st o f th e m . U m m o n te lls h im p la in ly , n o one is i l l , no one is d y in g , no one is dead, n o one w i ll be resurrected, no one w i ll go to heaven. U m m o n sa id to h is m o n ks, “ T h e w h o le u n iv e rs e is th e m e d ic in e to c u re illness,—but w h o ’s th e s ic k m a n ? ” T h e u n iv e rs e in a ll its h e a lth and health-giving c h a ra c te r is th e m e d ic in e fo r a ll illn e s s o f m in d and b o d y; th a t is c le a r, b u t i f th e w h o le u n iv e rs e is th e m e d icin e , w h e re can th e one w h o is i l l be, e x c e p t o u t­ side th e universe,—which is an im possibility ! U m m o n show s h e re th a t th e o rd in a ry , commonsense explanation o f th in g s is n o b e tte r th a n th e transcendental one, in w h ic h th e u n iv e rs e , th e m e d ic in e , is d o c to r, p a tie n t, undertaker, a nd g ra v e . Z e n m u s t a v o id b o th , i f th is can be done, and be i l l w ith o u t b e in g i l l , and w e ll w ith o u t b e in g w e ll. U m m o n sa id , “A m o n k s h o u ld k n o w th e eye o f a n c ie n t m en. W h a t w as th is eye?” H im s e lf a n s w e rin g , he said, “ I t is a to a d d a n c in g u p to h e a ve n .” T h e “ a n c ie n t m e n ” m eans th ose w h o u n d e rs to o d Z en. A to a d c a n n o t dance, a nd a m a n is n o t im m o rta l, b u t he can do s o m e th in g impossible, dance o u t o f d e a th in to (tim e le s s ) life . W e le a rn to do th is fro m th e a ncien ts. U m m o n asked a m o n k , “ W h e re h a ve y o u been la te ­ ly ? ” H e a n sw e re d , “ W ith S a ize n .” U m m o n asked, “ W h a t does S a ize n h a v e to sa y? ” T h e m o n k e xte n d e d b o th a rm s. U m m o n sla p p e d h im . T h e m o n k expostulat­ ed, €iI h a v e s o m e th in g to say Vf U m m o n e x te n d e d b o th arm s. T h e m o n k w as d u m b . U m m o n s tru c k h im . S a iz e n ,西 禅 ，w as a contemporary o f Seppo, G ensha, and U m m o n ; th is is a ll th a t is k n o w n o f h im . T h e 120 Ummon monk，s posing displeased Ummon and he gave him a slap. The monk then said he wasn’t finished yet, but when Ummon really held out his arms, the poor monk was silent. Ummon then delivered the verdict, a proper blow. Ummon was not a very pugilistic teacher, but perhaps the best way to deal with pretence and hypocrisy is with a (physical or verbal) smack,—~if of course the recipient has asked for it, and has agreed to accept it. Ummon asked a monk, “Where have you been re_ cently?” “In Sato (Chatu)査 渡 .，， “You must have worn out a lot of straw sandals !，， The monk was silent. “I regret those sandals,” said Ummon. “They were worn out in vain !” he sighed. This is very sarcastic, perhaps excusably so. Why didn，t the monk do or say something? I myself wouldn，t have, it's true, but it is allowed to wonder at the faults of others. We, who know all the answers, sneer at people a thousand years ago who had been brought up on sermons and lectures on Buddhism. While Ummon was drinking tea, he said, tlI wonder why tea tastes so nice?” A monk present asked Ummon to give his opinion on this point, and Ummon said, “It’s customary for a bowl to have a bottom to it, and a face that is noseless gets laughed at.” The monk was silent. Ummon said, “You’re just a chap that goes with the crowd and eats rice ! Just keep on doing i t !” Ummon was always asking and answering questions, but, like Dr. Johnson, he knew that the questions of foolish people are all foolish. Further, he knew what Dr. Johnson probably did not know, that no question has an answer, no cause has an effect; everything, as the really religious or poetical mind knows, is just as it is, and right as it is. A monk said to Ummon, aHow about the time when there was no Buddha in the Buddha Hall?” Ummon retorted, “Where does Buddha’s Brahma-voice come from?” Emptiness 131

O ne w a y to ch e ck a fo o lis h q u e s tio n is to ask a n o th e r fo o lis h one,—foolish, because w e c a n n o t ask w h y a lo n g th in g is lo n g . M a tte rs m u s t re m a in fundamental. W h y do th e flo w e rs b lo o m in s p rin g ? B u t “ s p rin g ” m eans “ th e b lo o m in g o f flo w e rs .” W h y does B u d d h a appear? B u t B u d d h a is w h a t appears. W h y has a B u d d h a a Brahma-voice, s tro n g , p u re and m e lo d io u s? T h a t is th e n a tu re o f a B u d d h a . W ith o u t h is Brahma-voice, B u d d h a w o u ld n o t be B u d d h a . U m m o n asked a m o n k , “ W h e re h a ve y o u been?” “ P a y in g m y resp ects a t th e g ra v e s ,” sa id th e m o n k. “ Y o u ’re jo k in g !” sa id U m m o n . r e a lly been p a y ­ in g m y resp ects a t th e g ra ve s \f, sa id th e m o n k . “ Y o u d on ’t ke ep th e F iv e Commandments !” sa id U m m o n . T h e F iv e Commandments a re a g a in s t, k illin g , s te a l­ in g , ly in g , a d u lte ry , and d rin k in g . U m m o n p ro b a b ly re fe rs to th e th ir d . Z en is n o t so m u ch opposed to fu n e ra ls , m a rria g e s , and ce re m o nie s o f a ll k in d s as in ­ d iffe re n t to th e jn , as i t is indifferent to m o r a lity , b e a u ty , and even s o -c a lle d tr u th its e lf. In a n o th e r anecdote c o n c e rn in g th e v is itin g o f g ra ve s, U m m o n asks th e m o n k, “ D id th e (d e a d ) p a tria rc h say a n y th in g ? ” T h is k in d o f sarcasm c o n c e rn in g superstitions, re lig io u s , so cia l, p o litic a l and so on, is n o t r e a lly Z en a t a ll, b u t com m on sense, w h ic h s h o u ld n o t a t le a s t decrease w ith an u n ­ derstanding o f Z en. U m m o n sa id , “ T h e re a l E m p tin e ss does n o t d e s tro y th in g s ,有 ； th e re a l E m p tin e ss is n o t d iffe r e n t fro m m ateriality, 色 •” A m o n k th e re u p o n asked, “ W h a t is th is re a l Emptiness?” U m m o n sa id , “ D o y o u h e a r th e sound o f a b e ll? ” “ T h a t’s th e so un d o f a b e ll,” sa id th e m o n k . “ E v e n w h e n y o u h a ve re a ch e d th e Y e a r o f th e D o n k e y , w i ll y o u s t ill be a -d re a m ? ” sa id U m m o n . E m p tin e ss is transcendental, a nd y e t i t is all-inclusive. T h in g s e x is t because o f th e E m p tin e s s ; o th e rw is e , th e y w o u ld f a ll in to e m p tin e ss, nothingness. T h e co n cre te e x is ts because o f th e a b s tra c t, n o t because o f th e ir co n ­ tra rin e s s , b u t because an o b je c t needs th e abstractions 132 Vmmon to hold it together, so to speak. What would white chalk do without whiteness? This is the teaching of Shifci sofcw ze fcil; fcil sofcit ze shifci,色 即 是 空 ，空 即 是 色 . Emptiness is form, form is Emptiness. Ummon chooses the sound of a bell because of its poetry, and because it is as nearly “empty” a thing as we can perceive. Ummon said, “The entire Universe, the Cosmos and the Great Earth, and I, this old monk in this world! With my staff I give it one blow, and say, It is smashed to smithereens V 9f It is in this spirit that we must face death, and, more important by far, face impudent children, and hysterical women, and our own pusillanimity. One day Ummon ascended the rostrum and said， “Vasubandhu happened to transform himself into a staff of chestnut wood, and, striking the earth once, all the innumerable Buddhas were released from their entangling words.” So saying he descended from the pulpit. Vasubandhu was the twenty first (Indian) patriarch, who lived perhaps in the 5th century A.D. He was the author of the Yuishikiron. Where this anecdote came from, or whether it was Ummon’s own invention I don’t know, but this Chuangtsean story means that the spirit of worship, the “Idea of the Holy,” is the very opposite of true religion, and that the Bibles and sacred writ­ ings must be destroyed together with the universe it­ self before a man can be as free as God was until its creation. Ummon held up his staff, and said, “We are told in the scriptures that an ordinary man thinks the staff is a real existence; that those of the Hinayana take it as nothing,無 ： that those believing in the pratyekabuddha take it as an illusory existence; that bodhisattvas say its reality is emptiness. But I say unto you, take the staff as just a staff; movement is movement; sitting is sitting, but don’t wabble under any circumstances !’’ Ummon picked up his staff, and, showing it to the A Staff 133

assem bled m o n ks, sa id , “ M y s ta ff has tu rn e d in to a d ra g o n a nd s w a llo w e d u p th e w h o le w o rld . W h e re a re th e p o o r m o u n ta in s a nd r iv e r s a nd g re a t e a rth n o w ? ” T h e abo ve tw o anecdotes, ta k e n to g e th e r, sh o w w h a t a s ta ff is a n d w h a t Z e n is , b u t th e second needs som e co m m en t. T o e x p la in th e s ta ff b e c o m in g a d ra g o n and g u lp in g d o w n th e u n iv e rs e , w ith o u t fa llin g in to m y s ­ tic is m , w h ic h is o d io u s, o r p a n th e is m , w h ic h is in t e l­ le c tu a l, o r literature, w h ic h is artificial,—this is d iffic u lt. W h a t is needed is fir s t o f a ll e n e rg y o f m in d ; second, imagination, a Shakespearian one th a t

D o th g la n c e fro m h e a ve n to e a rth , fr o m e a rth to hea ven .

U m m on is g o in g b a c k to th e In d ia n (a n d th e a n c ie n t T a o is t) v ie w o f th e w o r ld as m u tu a lly interpenetrative, each th in g c o n ta in in g a ll th in g s , a ll- th in g s concentrat­ in g its e lf in to each th in g . E a ch th in g has e v e ry q u a lity ; e v e ry q u a lity is th e sam e as e v e ry o th e r q u a lity , e ven o p p o site ones. T h e q u e s tio n is , h o w to l i f t u p th e w h o le u n iv e rs e w h e n w e l i f t u p a spoon, h o w to d is s o lv e i t to g e th e r w ith th e s u g a r in th e te a , fo r i f w e can do th is , th e re is n e v e r a d u ll m o m e n t. I t is c le a r th a t w e a pp ro ach th is s ta te th e m o re w e a re in te re s te d in th in g s . “ T he lu n a tic , th e lo v e r, a nd th e p o e t a re o f imagination a ll co m p a ct”； th e y h a v e w h a t Kierkegaard c a lls “ p u r ity o f h e a rt,” fo r th e y th in k o f one th in g o n ly . W h a t is th a t O ne T h in g ? N o one can sa y w h a t i t is, completely, fo r i f w e c o u ld r e a lly sa y i t completely, w e s h o u ld be it , and a ll th e se a rch w o u ld b e o v e r, a nd lif e be a t an end. U m m o n once s a id : “ M o n k S e i1 ( 生法師） d e c la re d th a t i f w e s tr ik e th e e m p ty a ir , i t m akes a so un d, a n d th a t a p ie ce o f w o o d w h e n h it, m ake s n o n e .” U m m o n s tru c k th e a ir w ith h is s tic k a n d c rie d “ O u ch !” a nd s tru c k th e flo o r a nd sa id , “ H e a r a n y th in g ? ” A m o n k sa id , “A sound V9 U m m o n e x c la im e d , “ D u ffe r !” a nd s tru c k th e

1. Who was Sei? I can’t say. 134 Ummon floor again, and asked, “Sound of w h a t ? ” Ummon was a man of great courage, who would put any statement to the test of practical experience, and any practical experience into a statement. Even ordi­ nary people, or shall we say, with Wordsworth, especially ordinary people sometimes feel that a stone is hurt, and feel sympathy for it. A mother can’t hear her own child squalling and making a nuisance of itself. Some people feel horror at the sight of a snake. The question is, what does God feel? We have to feel what he feels, what the poet, the artist, the musician feels. And Zen should feel most of all, because the back of the picture, the unheard melodies, the dull and the stale, and cheap and vulgar are all of infinite value. Thoreau said.

If I were confined to a corner in a garret all my days, like a spider, the world would be just as large to me while I had my thoughts. The staff was a favourite tool with Zen masters, who of course knew nothing of Freud, or they might have hesitated to use it so much. Blessed are the impure in heart. Funny6 (Fenyang)汾 陽 ， the 9th in descent from Nangaku, said, holding up his old staff, uli you understand this staff, you monks, your travels (行脚） are ended !’’ This reminds us of Stevenson’s fable of The Touchstone, 4but the meaning is different. The staff has the meaning of the horse_shoe, “and it rusty,” in another of his fables, The Poor Thing. A monk asked, “What is this sword that cuts a hair that falls on it?” Ummon said, “A patriarch.” This keen sword may be used to signify the Buddha nature or Buddha wisdom, but such symbols are not merely dangerous, they are deadly. Ummon’s answer is better because it is more material and practical. Buddhism is the man Buddha. Christianity is Christ. Love is God. We must always emphasise the personal over the impersonal. In the last Case of the Hekigan- rofcw, H a r y o (Paling)巴陵，the next in line of Ummon, Higgledy-Piggledy 135

is asked th e sam e q u e s tio n . H e a nsw ers, “ B ra n ch e s o f c o ra l e n fo ld in g th e moonlight,” a q u o ta tio n fro m Z engetsu. S h6zan (Chiangshan)蔣 山 ，re p lie d , “A b la c k la c q u e r outside-post.”1 R in z a i e x c la im e d , “ B a d lu c k ! B ad lu c k !n a n d w h e n th e m o n k w h o asked th e ques­ tio n b ow ed , h e s tru c k h im . These answ ers a re a ll aspects, o r uses, o f th e s w o rd . U m m o n ’s a n sw e r is less interesting th a n u s u a l, b u t p e rh a p s th e m o st c o rre c t o f th e m a ll. A m o n k asked U m m o n , “ H as B u d d h is m good p o in ts and d e fe cts? ” U m m o n a n sw e re d , “ T h is bam boo b lin d is fiv e fe e t lo n g .” In th e C hinese, “ good p o in ts a nd d e fe c ts ” is “ lo n g and s h o rt.” T h e b lin d is fiv e fe e t lo n g a nd i t is fiv e fe e t s h o rt. L o n g is s h o rt, a nd s h o rt is lo n g ; w h a t is th e q u e stio n ? W h a t is th e le n g th o f a s h o rt q u e stio n ? W h a t is th e sh o rtn e ss o f a lo n g answ er? O ne d a y U m m o n h it on th e s to ve w ith h is s ta ff once. A ll th e m o n k ’s eyes m o ve d in th e sam e w a y , and U m m o n said, “ T h e s to ve dances u p to th e Thirty-third, In d ra H eaven. D o y o u see it? ” T h e m o n k w e re speechless. “ E x p la in th in g s to s tu p id p e o p le ? ” sa id U m m o n . “ Y o u r heads w o u ld be p u lv e ris e d V9 A g a in , d u rin g m e a l-tim e he p o in te d to a w h ite ja r a nd sa id , “ T h is tra n sce n d s th e w o rd s o f th e B u d d h a s a nd th e Patriarchs, y o u k n o w .” A n s w e rin g h im s e lf h e sa id , “ F iv e tim e s n in e is fo r t y f iv e !’’ A g a in he sa id , “ L e t m e e a t b y m y s e lf!” T h e n a n o th e r d a y he sa id , “ A n a n c ie n t sage sa id , “ A ll th a t touches th e eye is th e W a y ,” a nd lifte d u p th e s o y -p o t and sa id , “ Is th is th e W a y ? ” T h e m o n ks h a d n o th in g to say. U m m o n sa id , “ G ood H ea ven s !” and th e n in a nsw er to th e fo rm e r q u e s tio n , “ F u n n y cast o f m in d th a t i s ! ” F ro m su ch an a c c o u n t w e fe e l th a t U m m o n h ad a m in d th a t in o rd in a ry p erson s and in o rd in a ry cases w o u ld be c a lle d fre n z ie d . H e re is a m a n m ad to te ach ,

1. 露柱 means the post standing out in the Hall, usually round. 136 Ummon

b u t w ith n o b o d y w a n tin g to le a rn . C h ris t a nd S ocrates seem to h a ve been s im ila r in c h a ra c te r, a nd s im ila r ly u n lu c k y in th e ir d is c ip le s . T h e w o r ld o f to d a y does n o t lis te n to a n y o f th e th re e . U m m o n sa id to th e head m o n k in th e H a ll, “ T e ll m e, a re y o u th e sam e as th e u n iv e rs e , o r different?” “ T he sam e,” sa id th e head m o n k . “ A ll liv in g th in g s , m oths, butterflies, a nts,— a re y o u th e sam e o r different?” “ T he sam e,” sa id th e head m o n k . “ W h y do y o u fig h t w ith th e m ? ” asked U m m o n . U m m o n seems to h a ve d is lik e d in se cts, and dogs and a n im a ls in g e n e ra l. T h is is a se rio u s d e fe c t, th a t is, a d e fe c t o f Z en, b u t th e p o in t is , i f w e a re th e sam e as n o x io u s th in g s , h o w is i t p o s s ib le fo r us to d e s tro y one a n o th e r? U m m o n does n o t re s o lv e th is p ro b le m , be­ cause n o b o d y can. U m m o n sa id to h is m o n ks, UI d o n 't ask y o u a b o u t a n y ­ th in g u p to th e fifte e n th o f th e m o n th , b u t say som e- th in g fo r a fte r th e fifteenth.” A n s w e rin g h im s e lf, he said, “ E v e ry d a y is a good d a y .” T h is can h a r d ly be c a lle d Z en, th o u g h i t fo rm s th e 6 th Case o f th e Hekiganroku. H o w e v e r, th o u g h i t m u st be c a lle d a tr ic k , i t is a Z en tr ic k , and ju s t as w e m u st = o t be d e ce ive d b y th e w o rd s , “ b e fo re th e fifteenth,” “ a fte r th e fifteenth,” so w e m u s t n o t be d e ce ive d b y th e days themselves, w h ic h a p p e a r as sacred, o r om inous, o r a m ia b le , o r h a te fu l, o r reproachful as in E m e rso n ’s poem , Days. Chapter XVII

UMMON III

One d a y U m m o n p u t h is h a n d in to th e m o u th o f a w ooden lio n a nd c rie d , “ H e is b itin g m e ! H e lp ! H e lp !” T h is p la y in g a t Z e n is e x c e lle n t. “ B y m e re p la y in g to go to H e a ve n ” is in fin ite ly b e tte r th a n th e te r r ib le seriousness th a t p ro d u c e d th e Inquisition a nd th e c o r­ re sp o n d in g d is lik e o f re lig io n . Z en is la u g h in g a t th e w o rld , la u g h in g w ith th e w o rld . A m o n k asked U m m o n , “ W h y does Samantabhadra rid e on an e le p h a n t? W h y does M a n ju s ri rid e on a lio n ? ” U m m on sa id , ftI h a v e n o e le p h a n t to r id e on, n o r a lio n , so I r id e on th e te m p le a nd go o u t o f th e te m p le g a te .” M a n ju s ri, th e e m b o d im e n t o f w is d o m , rid e s e ith e r on a lio n o r a p e a co ck; he o fte n h o ld a b o o k. S a m a n ta b - h a d ra is th e lo r d o f la w , 理 . U m m o n says th a t w e rid e on w h a t w e please. H e h im s e lf rid e s on B u d d h is m and goes o u t in to th e w o r ld to save p e o p le . F u k u ju (F u s h o u )福 寿 ，w h e n asked w h y S h a ka d id n ’t r id e on a n y th in g , th re w u p h is han ds, a nd sa id , “ H e ’s no g o o d ! H e’s no good !” A m o n k asked, “ H o w a b o u t w h e n th e lio n g ro w ls ? ” U m m on sa id , “ N e v e r m in d a b o u t w h e n i t g ro w ls , t r y ro a rin g .” T h e m o n k d id so, b u t U m m o n sa id , “ I t ’s an o ld r a t squeaking.” W h a t is im p o rta n t in a q u e s tio n , p e rh a p s th e o n ly im p o rta n t th in g a b o u t it , is th e to n e o f v o ic e , th e m a n ­ n e r, th e intonation, th e enunciation. T h is decides th e Zen o f th e q u e s tio n , th a t is , i f i t is a re a l q u e s tio n o r n o t. I f i t is a re a l q u e s tio n , i t a n sw e rs its e lf. T h e a c tu a l a n s w e r is o n ly th e w in d th a t b lo w s th e c re s t 138 Ummon o f th e w a v e o v e r. ,,, U m m o n asked a m o n k , " D id y o u h e a r th e long-beaked b ird s p re a c h in g Z en in K o z e i, K o n a n ? N o, I d ia n t, re p lie d th e m o n k . U m m o n ra is e d h is s ta ff, and said, “ Z e n !，， < m eans g a rru lo u s . U m m o n h im s e lf w as fo n d o f ta lk in g , a nd n o t, apparently, o f lis te n in g . H o w e v e r, U m m o n n e v e r fo rg e ts th a t Z e n is ta lk in g th in g s , n o t ta lk in g a b o u t th in g s . A monk asked Ummon, “How about when a blind tu r t le fin d s a h o le in a flo a tin g lo g ? ^ U m m o n answ ered, “ T he o ld m o n k fo ld s h is h an ds a nd d e p a rts !’’ The b lin d t u r t le a nd so o n is a s y m b o l o f th e difficulty, th e unlikelihood o f h e a rin g a b o u t Z e n in th is w o rld . U m m o n answ ers s im p ly th a t w e can o n ly say, N ow th o u le tte s t th y s e rv a n t d e p a rt in peace, fo r m in e e ye s___ ” W h e n Jo sh u w as asked th is q u e s tio n , he a nsw ere d, ra th e r superstitiously, “ I t is n o t an a c c id e n t•’ U m m o n sa id , ^ W ith in th e cosm os, w ith in th e u n iv e rs e th e re is a T re a s u re . I t h id e s w ith in th e b o d y. W e p ic k u p th e la m p a nd ta k e i t in to th e B u d d h a H a ll, W e ta k e th e G re a t G a te a nd p u t i t on th e la m p .” The word “in,” which Ummon uses, is misleading. Is th e so u l “ in ” th e body? I f so, i t m u s t h a v e th e shape o f th e b o d y , w h ic h i t f ills completely. W h a t is th e T re a su re ? Is i t th e B u d d h a n a tu re , o r G od, o r th e u n iv e rs a l so u l, o r Zen? I w o u ld ra th e r say i t is th e p o e tic a l n a tu re , w h ic h e nables us to do a ll th in g s , o rd in a ry and extraordinary,—if th e re be tw o k in d s o f th in g s , as U m m o n suggests b y h is tw o e xam ple s o f w h a t th e enlightened m a n can do. U m m o n sa id , “ T h e a n c ie n t B u d d h a s and th e o u tsid e p o st a re a lw a y s h a v in g intercourse w ith each o th e r; is th is subjective?” T h e m o n ks w e re d u m b . H im s e lf re p ly in g , “ W h e n clo u d s ris e o v e r th e S o u th e rn M o u n ta in , ra in fa lls on th e N o rth e rn M o u n ta in .” T h e life le s s o u ts id e p o st o f th e te m p le , and th e (a p ­ p a re n tly ) lif e f u l Buddhas,——w hat separates them ? Wordsworth 139

‘*W hom G od h a th jo in e d le t no (unpoetical, u n im a g in a ­ tiv e , inartistic, u n m u s ic a l, irreligious) m a n p u t a s u n d e r.” W o rd s w o rth says:

L o v e , n o w a u n iv e rs a l b ir th , F ro m h e a rt to h e a rt is s te a lin g , F ro m e a rth to m an , fro m m a n to eat h : — I t is th e h o u r o f fe e lin g .

T h is intercourse, o f w h ic h U m m o n g ive s an e x a m p le in th e B u d d h a s a nd th e p o st, is u n iv e rs a l. I t is n o t m e re ly fro m m an to m an , o r m a n to w o m a n , b u t fro m th e h e a rt o f each th in g to th e h e a rt o f a n o th e r. M a n lo ve s th e e a rth ; th e e a rth lo v e s m an . B u t W o rd s w o rth n o t o n ly imiversalises, he particularises. I t is in s p rin g , “ th e fir s t m ild d a y o f M a rc h ,” th a t th is “ fe e lin g ,” th is m u tu a l in tu itio n has its h o u r. U m m o n , lik e Wordsworth, does n o t le a v e us w ith th is a n im is m th a t is o n ly “ in h o u rs o f in s ig h t w ille d ,” b u t says th a t th e o rd in a ry th in g s o f N a tu re a re no less miraculous, th e clo u d s, th e m o u n ­ ta in s , th e ra in . U m m o n sa id to h is m o n ks, <4Giv e m e a se nte nce e x ­ p re ssin g th e tip s o f a h u n d re d w eeds.^ T h e m o n ks m ade no re p ly . U m m o n s a id ，“ T o g e th e r,倶 •” B e in g such an individualist, U m m o n k n e w , lik e D r. Johnson, th a t m a n is a s o c ia l a n im a l; he liv e s w ith o th e rs, o r n o t a t a ll. T h is d o u b le n a tu re o f m a n is b ro u g h t o u t b y a n o th e r ane cdo te , in w h ic h U m m o n w as asked a b o u t ( s o lita r y ) wall-m editation. H e sa id , “ I t is re p e a tin g th e B u d d h a ’s n a m e a ll to g e th e r.” A m o n k asked U m m o n , “ H o w a b o u t b e fo re G ozu m e t th e F o u rth Patriarch?”2 U m m o n sa id , “ K a n n o n in e v e ry house.” “ A n d a fte r? ” asked th e m o n k . “A ce n tip e d e inthefire,sw an 〇w i n g a t i g e r ，” answeredUmmon. B e fo re G ozu m e t th e F o u rth P a tria rc h , h is lif e w as as o r d in a r ily pioxxs as th e n e x t-d o o r B u d d h is t, b u t a fte r he m e t h im , he liv e d transcendentally, e v e ry a ct

2. See page 10. 140 Ummon miraculous, e v e ry th o u g h t supernatural. U m m o n sa id to a m o n k , “ W h a t nationality a re y o u ? ” H e sa id , “I am fro m S illa .” “ W h a t d id y o u b rin g w ith y o u across th e sea?” asked U m m o n . “ T h e s m a ll ro b b e r m akes a b ig fa ilu r e ,” a n sw e re d th e m o n k . “ W h y are y o u in m y h an ds? ” asked U m m o n . “ I t is ju s t so,” re p lie d th e m o n k . U m m o n sa id , “I a llo w y o u to ju m p o u t.” “ T h e s m a ll ro b b e r m akes a b ig failure,m eans, “ D on ’t t r y y o u r tr ic k s on m e !’’ T h e m o n k re je c ts U m m o n ’s. “ W h a t d id y o u b rin g w ith y o u ? ” as b e in g a w o rn -o u t Z en q u e s tio n . U m m o n a d m its th e m o n k ’s independent a ttitu d e , b u t re p ro v e s h im , s a y in g , “ （If so) w h y are y o u h e re b e fo re m e, a s k in g fo r m y h e lp ? ” T h e m o n k m a in ta in s h is independence, a nd say h e is th e re , be­ cause he happens to be th e re , n o t fro m a n y n ece ssity o f b e in g ta u g h t, b u t b y ch an ce o r fa te . U m m o n says, ^ Y o u m a y be independent o f m e i f y o u w is h /' A m o n k sa id to U m m o n , “ H o w can w e spend th e tw e lv e h o u rs o f th e d a y w ith o u t w a s tin g th e m ? ” U m ­ m on sa id , “ W h a t a re y o u g e ttin g a t? ” T h e m o n k said, “I d o n ’t understand; p lease t e ll m e.” U m m o n m ade a verse, a nd gave i t to h im :

I t is b ad n o t to lo o k a t w h a t is p o in te d o u t to y o u ; I f y o u in te n d ju s t to dichotomise, in w h a t e te rn ity w ill y o u becom e enlightened?

U m m o n saw th a t th e m o n k w as ju s t a s im p le to n , and gave h im a c o u p le t to th in k o v e r. W h a t is m ost d iffic u lt o f a ll is ju s t to lo o k a t w h a t y o u see, w ith o u t b e in g fo r i t o r a g a in s t it , w ith o u t b e in g indifferent to it, b e lie v in g in it . A m o n k asked U m m o n , “ W h a t is U m m o n ’s one tu n e ? ” U m m o n a nsw ere d, “ T h e tw e n ty f if t h o f D ecem ber.，， “ H o w a b o u t th e one w h o sing s it? ” asked th e m on k. “ N o t a ca re in th e w o rld !” sa id U m m o n . O ne tu n e , —曲，m eans U m m o n ’s u n iq u e and m o st p ro - Buddhism 141 fo u n d v ie w o f th e w o rld . U m m o n ’s a n sw e r m eans th a t h is s p e c ia lity is h is p u re nonsense, lik e th a t o f L e a r and L e w is C a rro ll. T h e s in g e r is, w h ile he is s in g in g h is song a t le a st, c a re -fre e , and a lw a y s , so as fa r as he is h im s e lf co nce rn ed . U m m o n sa id , “ B u d d h is m is ju s t te r r ific ! T h e to n g u e is so s h o rt.” T h e n he added, “ So lo n g .” A ls o he sa id , “ W h e n w e h a v e fin is h e d c u ttin g w ith a g re a t axe, w e ru b o u r h an ds to g e th e r.” T h e e x p re s s io n 太熬，Japanese h an ah ad a, a nd 甚，太， 太甚，太殺，可熬，念熬，絶 ，酷 ，w e re a ll v u lg a ris m s o f th e S ung P e rio d , a nd m e a n t “ k illin g , ” “enormous,” “ a w fu l,” in th e s la n g sense. B u d d h is m is d iffic u lt to e x p la in ; o u r a b ility is insufficient. O n th e o th e r h a n d , i t is d iffic u lt because w e ta lk to o m u ch . A n d w h e n w e h a v e fin is h e d o u r le c tu re , o r o u r c h a p te r, w e fe e l a k in d o f nausea, a re a c tio n , fro m over-strain. A m o n k asked R e iju ( L in g s h u ) 霊 樹 ，“ W h a t is th e m e a n in g o f D a ru m a ’s c o m in g to th e W e st? ” R e iju w as s ile n t. A fte r he d ie d , p e o p le w a n te d to in s c rib e h is d oings on h is tomb-stone, a nd th is in c id e n t w as d e cid e d on. A t th is tim e U m m o n w as th e c h ie f m o n k , and one o f th e m o n ks asked h im h o w to p u t th e in c id e n t o f th e re m a in in g s ile n t on th e grave-stone. U m m o n sa id , “ W rite , ‘Teacher’.” W e te a ch s ile n tly , a nd o n ly s ile n tly , th o u g h w e m a y be s ile n t o r ta lk . R e iju d id n o t te a ch b y h is b e in g s ile n t, b u t b y h is s ile n ce , a S ile n c e w h ic h n e v e r sto pp ed , even w ith h is d e a th a nd e te rn a l s ile n ce . U m m o n com posed a ve rs e :

A sentence w h ic h does n o t re v e a l its m e a n in g A tta in s its end b e fo re b e in g sp oke n. Y o u p ress fo rw a rd , w ith m o u th a -c h a tte r, B e tra y in g y o u r n o t k n o w in g w h a t to do.

T h e fir s t tw o lin e s lo o k lik e m e re p e rv e rs e c o n tra ­ dictoriness, b u t th is is n o t so. In a c tu a l d a ily experience, o r ra th e r, in m o n th ly a nd y e a rly , n o t to say lif e ly e x ­ 142 Ummon p e rie n ce , i t is a lw a y s th e u n sp o ke n in te n tio n th a t is e ffe c tiv e , n o t th e w o rd s w h ic h fo llo w . U m m o n sa id to h is m o n ks, ^T he O ld B a rb a ria n , w he n he w as b o rn , w ith one h a n d he p o in te d h is fin g e r a t th e s k y , w ith th e o th e r h e p o in te d h is fin g e r to th e e a rth , lo o k e d in th e fo u r directions, to o k seven steps a n d sa id , ‘A b o v e H e a ve n , and b e lo w H e a ve n , I am th e o n ly H o n o u re d O ne.’ I f I h ad seen h im a t th a t tim e , I w o u ld h a ve b e a te n h im to d e a th w ith m y s ta ff, and fe d h im to th e dogs, so as to b rin g peace to th e w o rld .” U m m o n is n o t m e re ly p ra is in g b y b la m e . E v il arises to g e th e r w ith good, d e lu s io n w ith enlightenment. T he w o r ld o f a n im a ls , fo r a ll th e e a tin g a nd b e in g eaten, is a w o r ld o f peace, and even th e enlightened m an can s c a rc e ly re ta in th e peace th a t passeth misunderstanding. U m m o n is p e rh a p s th e g re a te s t m a n C h in a p ro du ced . H e is a m ix tu r e o f S e lde n, S w ift, S id n e y S m ith , and O scar W ild e . H e has h is superstitions, i t is tru e , B u d d h is t and T a o is t, fo r e x a m p le th e b e lie f in re in ­ c a rn a tio n , b u t i t is easy fo r us, m o re th a n a th ou san d y e a rs la te r, to lo o k b a c k u p o n h im and see h o w he c o u ld n o t in e v e ry w a y tra n s c e n d h is age and place, b u t fo r boldness, succinctness, profundity, universality, transcendentality, o n ly E c k h a rt and T h o re a u com e near h im . F o r th is reason, h e is u n k n o w n o u ts id e C h in a a nd Ja p a n . E ve n in Ja p a n a lm o s t no one k n o w s h is nam e, and h is g o ro k u , th e a c co u n t o f h is lif e and say­ in g s, is practically unobtainable. U m m o n ’s c h ie f d is c ip le , a nd th e o n ly one re a lly w o r th y o f h im w as T ozan, to be distinguished fro m th e c o -fo u n d e r o f th e S oto sect, w hose nam e w as R y o k a i; U m m o n ’ s T 6za n w as S husho (Shouch‘u ), 守初• H is dates a re u n k n o w n , and n o th in g is k n o w n o f h is life , b u t h e is responsible fo r one o f th e m o st fa m o u s o f a ll koans. A m o n k asked T 6zan, “ W h a t is th e B u d d h a ? ” “ T h re e pou nd s o f fla x ,” he a n sw e re d . T h is re p ly is spontaneous, mysterious, satisfactory. T h e re is n o th in g m o re to ask, n o th in g m o re to say. I t re m in d s one a Tozan 143

lit t le o f H iju ’s3 a n s w e r to a m o n k ’s q u e s tio n , ‘ ^ h a t is th e B u d d h a ? ” “ I t ’s a c a t c lim b in g th e g re a t ro u n d p illa r o f th e H a ll.” W h e n th e p o o r chap sa id , “I d o n ’t understand,” h e re p lie d , “ A s k th e p illa r !” W h e n T oza n w e n t to le a rn fro m U m m o n , h e w as asked w h e re h e h a d com e fro m . “ F ro m S ato (C h ‘a tu ) 査 渡 h e re p lie d . U m m o n asked, “ W h e re d id y o u spend th e su m m e r? ” “ A t H 6 ji T e m p le , in K o n a n .” “ W h e n d id y o u le a v e th e re ? ” “ O n th e 2 5 th o f A u g u s t.” U m m o n sa id , “I fo rg iv e y o u t h ir t y b lo w s w ith th e s tic k .” T h e n e x t d a y T o za n asked U m m o n , <4Ho w d id I d ese rve th o se b lo w s y e s te rd a y ? W h e re w as I a t fa u lt? ” U m m o n sa id , ‘*Y ou b ig ric e -b a g ! Y o u w a n d e r fro m W e st o f th e r iv e r to S o u th o f th e L a k e lik e th a t V9 A t th is , T oza n w as g re a tly enlightened, a nd sa id , ^ F ro m n o w on, I w i ll go w h e re th e re is no sm oke o f h u m a n habitation, ke e p n o t a g ra in o f ric e , b u t w i ll e n te rta in a ll th e p e o p le fr o m th e te n d ire c tio n s o f th e w o rld , d isso lve th e g lu e [o f th e ir attachment] and re le a se th e m fro m t h e ir ' b on ds !’’ U m m o n sa id , “ Y o u r b o d y is no b ig g e r th a n a co co n u t, b u t w h a t a b ig m o u th w h e n y o u open i t V9 W h a t w as T d za n ’s enlightenment? W h a t d id he p e rce ive ? H e s u d d e n ly saw h im s e lf, a tr a v e lle r , as a non-traveller; a re lig io u s s p ir it, as a ric e -b a g ; im m o rta l, because u n -b o rn . U m m o n ’s re m a rk w as th e s im p le s t and le a s t m e a n in g fu l h e c o u ld m a ke , a nd th e re fo re , a ll th e m o re T o za n p e rc e iv e d th e d iv in e s im p lic ity and s u b lim e meaninglessness o f th e w o rld . A s G o ethe sa id , renunciation is th e s e c re t o f life , fo r renunciation m eans d eath, th a t is , rice-bag-ness. A m o n k asked T o za n , , T o za n sa id , uT h e c ro w -b la c k tu r t le n o t e n te r­ in g th e w a te r, b u t g o in g a b o u t in th e d u s t o f th e e a rth .>, T h e P u re D h a rm a B o d y m eans a r e a lity b e yo n d p u r ity and im p u r ity , th u s , th e tr u e n a tu re o f m an . T h e

3 . 稗 樹 ， disciple of Yakvisan. 144 Ummon a c tiv ity o f th is tr u e n a tu re is super-natural, b u t a t th e sam e tim e is w h a t m akes n a tu ra l th in g s n a tu ra l. ” T6zan asked a monk, “You are a new-comer?” :‘Yes,” he replied. “You stayed here overnight; how is it th is morning?” The monk a n sw e re d , “ T h e w in d is b lo w in g ra th e r s tro n g ly , b lo w in g u p th e b a c k o f th e b lu e m o u n - tains.” T6zan said, “That won’t do; try again!” “ G o o d b ye ,” sa id th e m o n k . T oza n h it h im . T h e m o n k a n sw e re d ra th e r impudently, q u o tin g some ve rse , a p in g th e te a c h e r. T h is s o rt o f th in g increased w ith tim e , u n t il i t becam e th e ta s k o f th e student-monk o n ly to fin d som e q u o ta tio n to f i t th e p ro b le m . A monk said to T6zan, “A monk,雲 水 ，is one who m ix e s w ith o th e rs ; w h a t k in d o f m an is h e w h o a rriv e s a t th e s u m m it o f th e m o u n ta in ? ” T o za n sa id , UA m an w ith o u t leg s goes w e ll; a m a n w ith o u t h an ds gets h o ld o f th in g s e a s ily .” A m an w ith o u t a m b itio n gets to th e to p . “ B y th a t sin f e ll th e a n g e ls.” A m o n k sa id to T 6za n, “ H o w a b o u t w h e n th e c a rt stops, b u t th e o x doesn’t? ” T 6za n sa id , “ W h y n o t e m p lo y a d riv e r ? ” T h e m o n k says, “ T h e fle sh is w illin g , b u t th e s p ir it is w e a k .” T 6za n says, “Underneath a re th e everlasting a rm s.^ In (In d ia n ) B u d d h is m , th e o x is th e m o st im ­ p o rta n t o f a n im a ls . I n th e Hokke Sutra, B u d d h is m is co m p a re d to a c a rt d ra w n b y a w h ite o x , a nd in th e Y u i- k y 6 S u t r a , 遺教経，re lig io u s p ra c tic e s a re illustrated b y a p a s tu re cow . In Z en th e re a re m a n y m o n d o connected w ith cow s, and th e re a re th e bull-herding p ic tu re s , th e p ro b le m , as w ith th e m o n k , b e in g to c o n tro l th e b u ll. W ho is th e d riv e r? I t is B u d d h a , th e B u d d h a n a tu re , th e n a tu re o f N a tu re , S o m e th in g b e yo n d a ll these, b u t clo se r th a n b re a th in g . T 6za n asked a m o n k , “ W h e re h a ve y o u com e fro m ? ” “ F ro m J o s h ti,汝 州 “ H o w fa r w as th a t? ” “ Seven h u n d re d lea gu es.” “ H o w m a n y straw-sandals d id yo u w e a r o u t? ” “ T h re e p a irs .” “ H o w d id y o u g e t th e Tdzan 145 m on ey to b u y th e m ? ” “ B y m a k in g umbrellas.” T oza n said, “ Go b a ck to th e m o n k s ’ H a l l !’’ T h e m o n k m ade h is salutations, and o ff h e w e n t. I th in k i t w o u ld h a v e been m o re h o p e fu l i f he h a d ro b b e d a b a n k o r g o t th e m o n e y fro m p in - b a ll m ach in e s. Such an h o n e st and f a ith f u l fe llo w is as hopeless as th e m o st a m b itio u s v illa in . A m o n k asked T 6 z a ti, “ W h a t is a fo rm le s s to w e r? ” T6zan re p lie d , “A sto ne lio n a t th e crossways.” I t is im p o rta n t n e v e r to f a ll in to th e a b so lu te , th e fo rm le ss, th e s p ir itu a l, and n e v e r to f a ll in to th e re ­ la tiv e , th e fo r m - fu l, th e m a te ria l. “ F o rm le s s , 無縫 is lit e r a lly “seamless.” T ozan trie s to g e t th e m o n k in to th e re g io n b e tw e e n th e tw o . Chapter XVIII

THE SANDOKAI

T h e Sandokai (Ts'anfungch'i) w as w r itte n b y S h ih fo u ( S e k it 6 ) 石 頭 ， 700-790， th e d is c ip le o f C h in g y u a n ( S e ig e n ) 青 原 . When S h ih t‘ou w as tw e lv e o r th irte e n ye a rs o ld he m e t th e S ix th P a tria rc h , E no, w ho d ie d soon afterwards. H e liv e d a t th e S o u th e rn T em p le , 南寺，w h e re he fo u n d a fla t stone, b u ilt a h u t o v e r it, and d id zazen th e re . F ro m th is h e w as c a lle d S h ih t‘ou, “Stone-head.” I t is sa id th a t w h e n he w as yo u n g , lik e th e p o e t Po C h iii (see page 14) h e g o t a n g ry a t th e s ig h t o f p e o p le k illin g cow s and o ffe rin g w in e to th e s h rin e o f th e gods; he b ro k e d o w n th e a lta rs and le d th e cow s b a ck hom e. H is enlightenment w as a tta in ­ ed in ra th e r an u n u s u a l w a y , b y re a d in g . T h e book w as C h a o h m ，肇論，w r itte n b y S d n g c h a o ,僧 肇 ， one o f Kum arajiva’s fo u r d is c ip le s ,四哲，a b o u t 400 A.D. T h is w as com posed in p ris o n w h ile w a itin g to be executed. T h e passage w h ic h b ro u g h t on S h ih t‘o u ’s enlightenment w a s: “ H e w h o m akes h im s e lf to be a ll th e th in g s o f th e u n iv e rs e , is n o t he th e re a l sage?” 会万物為己者夫 唯聖人乎• T h e t it le o f th e poem , has an in ­ te re s tin g m e a n in g . T s^m m eans th a t a ll th in g s are in a d iffe re n t c o n d itio n fro m one a n o th e r; t (u n g th a t a ll th in g s a re e q u a l and id e n tic a l in th e ir e s s e n tia l ch a ra c­ te r ; ch (i th a t th e d iffe re n c e o f th e p he no m e na is th e sta te o f e q u a lity . Ts^nfungchHthus m eans ^condition, fu n d a ­ m e n ta l b e in g , and th e ir u n ite d activity.,> ^*he o b je c t o f th e iSand6fcai is to see th e u n iv e rs e as i t r e a lly is, b u t th e q u e s tio n is, w ith w h a t eye? T h a t i t is p o ssib le fo r th e in te lle c t, a p a r t o f th e microcosmos, to g rasp th e w h o le o f th e macrocosmos m u s t be con­ The Sandokai 147

sid e re d h ig h ly u n lik e ly (u p o n intellectual g ro u n d s ) and Z en — th e essence o f th e u n iv e rs e , a nd th e u n iv e rs e o f w h ic h i t is th e essence—must be e x p o u n d e d in th e Zen, n o t th e r a tio n a l w a y . H o w e v e r, th e S a n d o k a i m a y be ta k e n m o re g e n e ro u s ly as a v a lia n t a tte m p t to show th a t th e Z en e x p e rie n c e (th e e x p e rie n c e b y th e u n iv e rs e o f th e u n iv e rs e ) is a t le a s t n o t contradicted b y rea son and a s y s te m a tic consideration o f e xiste n ce . T h e S a n d o k a i is in v e rs e fo rm , f o r t y fo u r lin e s o f fiv e c h a ra c te rs each.

竺土大仙心，東西密相附。 人根有利鈍，道無南北祖〇 霊滬明晈潔，支派喑流注。

THE MIND OF THE GREAT SAGE OF IN D IA 1 WAS CONVEYED CORDIALLY FROM WEST TO E A S T .2 IN HUMAN BEINGS THERE ARE WISE MEN AND FOOLS, BUT IN THE WAY THERE IS NO NORTHERN OR SOUTHERN T E A C H E R .8 THE MYSTERIOUS SOURCE IS CLEAR AND BRIGHT: THE TRIBUTARY STREAMS* 4 FLOW THROUGH THE D A R K N E S S .5 * *

執事元是迷，契理亦非悟。

TO BE ATTACHED TO T H IN G S ,8 THIS IS ILLU-

1. Buddha. 2. From India. 3. See Vol. I, page 214. 4. Phenomena. 5. Nothingness. The water of the Source is no different from that of the tributaries, though one is light, the other is dark. This is what Dante means when he says, in Paradiso, V 7; E s’altra cosa vostro amor seduce, Non se non di quella alcun vestigio Mai conosciuto che quivi traluce. And if some other (earthly) thing draw your love away, Naught is it but a vestige of the Light, Half-understood, which shines through that thing. 6. Their variety and difference. 148 The Sandokai

BUT TO TAKE TO ONESELF THE UNIVERSAL REASON IS NOT ENLIGHTENMENT.7

門々一切境，回互不回互。 回而更相渉，不爾依位住。

EACH AND ALL THE [ELEMENTS OF THE] SUBJECTIVE AND OBJECTIVE S P H E R E S 8 ARE RELATED, AND AT THE SAME TIME IN- D E P E N D E N T r RELATED, YET WORKING DIFFERENTLY, THOUGH EACH KEEPS ITS OWN P L A C E .9

色元殊質像，声本異楽苦。 暗合上中言，明分清濁句。

FORM MAKES THE CHARACTER AND AP­ PEARANCE DIFFERENT; SOUND [TASTE, SMELL, ETC.] DISTINGUISH10 11 *13 12 COMFORT AND DISCOMFORT. THE D A R K 11 MAKES ALL WORDS ONE; THE BRIGHTNESS15 DISTINGUISHES GOOD AND BAD LITERATURE.

四大性自復，如子得其母。

THE FOUR E L E M E N T S 18 RETURN TO THEIR

7. To grasp that all things are one is only half of enlighten­ ment, for all things are also manifold. 8. ^Each** means ears, eyes, etc., whose activity is subjective. “ All” is colours, sounds, etc.， which are inventions of the mind, “ flowers of the air.” 9. Objects have on the one hand only a subjective existence and are merely relations in the mind; but on the other an object is an isolated object in itself, apart from any subject. 10. Give rise to. 11. The Dark is the Mysterious Source which before was taken as light. 12. This is the Darkness of a few lines before, that is, pheno- menalising differentiation. 13. The Four Elements refers to all the things in the world, Including human beings themselves. The Sanddkai 149

N A T U R E 14 AS A CHILD TO ITS MOTHER.

火熱風動摇，水湿地堅固。 眼色耳音声，鼻香舌鹹酢。 而於一々法，依根葉分布。

FIRE IS HOT, WIND MOVES, WATER IS WET, EARTH H A R D .15 16 EYES SEE, EARS HEAR, THE NOSE SMELLS, THE TONGUE TASTES ONE SALT, ANOTHER SOUR. E A C H 10 IS INDEPENDENT OF THE OTHER, BUT THE DIFFERENT LEAVES COME FROM THE SAME ROOT.

本末須帰宗，尊卑用其語。

CAUSE AND EFFECT BOTH NECESSARILY DERIVE FROM THE GREAT R E A L IT Y .17 THE WORDS “HIGH” AND “LOW” ARE USED RELATIVELY.18

当明中有喑，勿以暗相遇。 当喑中有明，勿以明相覩。' 明暗各相対，比如前後歩。 万物自有功，当言用及処。

WITHIN THE LIGHT THERE IS DARKNESS, BUT DO NOT BE ATTACHED TO THIS DARK­ NESS. WITHIN THE DARKNESS THERE IS LIGHT, BUT DO NOT LOOK FOR THAT LIGHT. LIGHT AND DARKNESS ARE A PAIR, LIKE THE FOOT BEFORE AND THE FOOT BE-

14. This nature is the Buddha nature. 15. These lines remind us of the Anglo-Saxon gnomic verses. 16. “ Each” means each “ thing” resulting from external objects and internal faculties. 17. This is Laotse，s “ Way that cannot be called a Way.” 18. They have no meaning， any more than the words “ absolute” and “ relative” have, as far as the Great Reality is concerned. 150 The Sandokai

HIND IN WALKING. EACH THING HAS ITS OWN INTRINSIC V A L U E ,1* AND IS RELATED TO EVERYTHING ELSE IN FUNCTION AND PO SITIO N.19 20

事存函蓋合，國 6 箭鋒拄。

ORDINARY LIFE FITS THE ABSOLUTE AS A BOX AND ITS LID; THE ABSOLUTE WORKS TOGETHER WITH THE RELATIVE LIKE TWO ARROWS MEETING IN M ID -A IR .21

承言須会宗，勿自立規矩。 触目不会道，運足焉知路。 道歩非近速，迷隔山河固。

READING THE ABOVE LINES YOU SHOULD HAVE GRASPED THE GREAT REALITY. DO NOT JUDGE BY ANY STANDARDS. IF YOU DO NOT SEE THE WAY, YOU DO NOT SEE IT, THOUGH YOU ARE ACTUALLY WALKING ON IT. WHEN YOU WALK THE WAY, IT IS NOT NEAR, IT IS NOT F A R .22 IF YOU ARE DELUDED, YOU ARE MOUNTAINS AND RIVERS AWAY FROM IT.

謹白参玄人，光陰莫虚度。 I SAY RESPECTFULLY TO THOSE WHO WISH TO BE ENLIGHTENED. “DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME IN VAIN.”

T h e S a n d o k a i is an e x p o s itio n o f th e T e n d a i K e go n philosophy, in th a t i t id e n tifie s o p p o site s and equates th e in d iv id u a l p e rso n to th e U n iv e rs a l S o u l. T he

19. Is absolute. 20. Is relative. 21. This refers to a story of two masters of archery. When they shot at each other， their skill was so great， so “ equal/， that the two arrows met head-on, and fell to the ground. 22. Walking, real Walking, is not from here to there. The Sandokai 151

S a n d o k a i, h o w e v e r, h a r d ly s trik e s one as a Z e n co m ­ p o s itio n , r a th e r as a B u d d h is t one. I t la c k s th e s im p lic ity o f th e Hsinhsinming, th e concreteness o f H a k u in ^ W asan, and th e h u m o u r o f th e M u m o n k a n . W o rs t o f a ll, i t is d e fic ie n t in p o e try . In a w o rd , i t b elon gs to an e a rly p e rio d in th e h is to r y o f Z en w h e n r e lig io n w as s t ill u n e a s ily a llie d to philosophic a b s tra c ­ tio n . T h e p o e try o f Z en , in w h ic h w o rd s a re th in g s and th in g s a re w o rd s , is q u ite d iffe r e n t fro m th is . T h e re h a v e been an e no rm ou s n u m b e r o f tre a tis e s on th e S a n d o ka i, b e g in n in g w ith H o g e n (F a y e n ) 法眼，and in c lu d in g Secch6 (H s U e h to u )雪赛. In Ja p a n , T e n k e i D e n s o n ,天桂伝尊，1648-1735, o f th e S 6 t6 S ect, w h o also w ro te commentaries on th e Hekiganroku, S7i6bdgfenz6， e tc.， c ritic is e d th e jSanddfcai in T o - dofcw fco,塗毒鼓• Chapter X IX

THE HOKYOZAMMAI

T h e ffdfci/dzam m ai,宝鏡三昧，P a o c h in g S a m m e i, “ The Treasure-Mirror o f H e a v e n ly B lis s ,” is a ve rse com ­ p o s itio n w h ic h has been a sc rib e d to v a rio u s a u th o rs . A t th e p re s e n t tim e , T 6zan ( T u n g s h a n ) 洞 山 ，807-869，is co n sid e re d to be th e m o st lik e ly , b u t c o m p a rin g th is in c o h e re n t a nd pettifogging “ poe m ” w ith th e accou nt g iv e n o f T oza n in h is g o ro k u , a fa r less g ifte d Zen m a s te r w o u ld be m o re s u ita b le . H o w e v e r, th e o th e r nam es suggested a re Y a k u s a n a nd U n g a n , w h o m also one w o u ld n o t lik e to sa d d le w ith it . T h e Hokydzammai co nsists o f 376 characters, 94 lin e s o f 4 c h a ra c te rs each. I t is c o m m o n ly re a d d a ily in te m p le s o f th e S oto b ra n c h o f th e Z en S ect. I d o u b t w h e th e r m o st o f th e m o n ks u n d e rs ta n d w h a t th e y are re c itin g . E ve n an E n g lis h translation can h a r d ly m ake th e short-lined o r ig in a l a p p e a r interesting. T ozan says th a t th e w o rld is m ade o u t o f th e tw o e le m e n ts o f same­ ness and difference; th a t w o rd s a re d a n g e ro u s; th a t th e r e la tiv e a nd a b s o lu te a re one th in g ; th a t no-thought, th a t is , fre e d o m fro m discrim ination a nd d ic h o to m y , is th e s a lv a tio n o f th e s o u l; th a t a ll th in g s m u s t o be y one a n o th e r. W h e n Z en adepts tu r n to lite r a tu r e th e y o fte n sh o w som e fundamental shortcomings. T h e y sh ou ld s tic k to th e ir sh ou ts and b lo w s .

如是之法。佛祖密付。 汝今得之。宣善保護O 銀怨盛雪。明月蔵黧。 類之不齊。混則無処。 THE THUSNESS OF TRUTH HAS BEEN CONVEYED FROM BUDDHAS AND PATRIARCHS INTIMATELY. The Hokyozammai 153

YOU ARE NOW IN POSSESSION OF IT: GUARD IT WELL! SNOW HEAPED IN A SILVER DISH, A WHITE HERON HIDDEN IN THE BRIGHT MOONLIGHT,1— THESE ARE ALIKE, BUT NOT THE SAME, CONFUSED, BUT DISTINGUISHABLE.

意不在言。来機亦赴。 動成窠臼。差落顧佇。 背触倶非。如大火聚。

THE MEANING OF THINGS IS INEXPRESSIBLE IN W O R D S ,1 2 3 * * BUT THEY ARE HINTS TO THE SEARCHING SPIRIT. WHEN YOU DICHOTOMISE YOU FALL INTO A HOLE; WHEN YOU OPPOSE THINGS YOU ARE FULL OF UNCERTAINTY. GETTING NEAR IT, OR BEING FAR FROM IT,— BOTH ARE WRONG. IT IS LIKE A GREAT BALL OF F IR E .8

但形文彩。即屬染汚。 夜半正明。天陡不露〇 為物作則。用抜諸苦。 雖非有為。不是無語0

EXPRESSED IN LITERARY TERMS, IT IS SMEARED AND SMIRCHED. AT MIDNIGHT IT IS BRIGHT, IN THE DAWN IT IS DARK. FOR THE SAKE OF ALL BEINGS IT BECOMES

1. These similes illustrate the truth of the sameness and dif­ ference of all things. 2. This is a dangerous half-truth. The meaning is not in the words, but neither is it in things or actions. As Goethe says, “Things are themselves the meaning,” and we may add, “ When the words are real words, the words are themselves the meaning.” 3. If you get near it (Buddha, The Law, Things, Reality) you will be burnt to death; if you go away from it you are frozen to death. 154 The Hokyozammai

THE LAW; ITS FUNCTION IS TO REMOVE ALL THE TROUBLE IN THE WORLD. THOUGH IT IS NOT OF THIS WORLD OF BIRTH AND DEATH, NEITHER IS IT WITHOUT W O R D S .4 5 6

如臨寶鏡。形影相親。 汝不是渠。渠正是汝。 如世嬰児。五相完具。 不去不来。不起不住。 婆婆啪聊。有句無句。 終不得物。語未正故。

AS WHEN WE LOOK IN A PRECIOUS MIRROR, THE FORM SEES ITS REFLECTION. YOU ARE NOT HE,B BUT HE IS YOU. IT IS LIKE A BABY COMPLETE WITH THE FIVE SENSE ORGANS. IT CANNOT GO OR COME, CANNOT STAND UP, CANNOT SIT. “PO, PO, HO, HO!” IT SAYS, IN WORDS THAT ARE NOT WORDS. WE CAN ，T UNDERSTAND WHAT IT’S TALKING ABOUT, FOR ITS WORDS ARE FAR FROM ACCURATE.

重離六爻。偏正回互。 畳而為三。変尽為五。 如蓥草味。如金剛杵。

THE SIX LINES OF THE CHUNGLI HEXAGON, SHOWING INTERDEPENDENCE, WHEN OVERLAID, THE VARIATIONS ARE THREE WHICH TRANSFORM THEMSELVES INTO F IV E ,8 P, LIKE THE GRASS CALLED CHI, WHICH HAS

4. All things, even words, speak of It. 5. The form is not its reflection, but the reflection is (that of) the form. 6. I don't understand this. The Hokyozammai 155

FIVE DIFFERENT TASTES, LIKE THE VAJRA OF VAIROCANA.T

正中妙挾。敲唱雙挙。 通宗通途0 挾帯■ 〇 錯然則吉。

IN THE MIDDLE, THERE IS A MARVELLOUS UNIVERSALITY COMING OUT FROM TEACHING AND LEARN­ ING. FOR THE AIM AND ITS MEANS, IT IS GOOD TO BE RESPECTFUL AND MODEST.

不可犯忤。天真而妙。 不属迷悟。因縁時節。 寂然照著。細入無間。 大絶方所。毫忽之差。 不JS律呂。 DO NOT OPPOSE IT. ITS PURITY AND UNCHANGEABILITY IS WONDERFUL. IT BELONGS NEITHER TO ENLIGHTENMENT NOR TO ILLUSION. WHEN KARMA AND THE TIME MATURE, IT QUIETLY A P P E A R S ,7 8 9 IN SMALL THINGS IT IS BOUNDLESS. IN THE GREAT IT IS UNLIMITED BY DIREC­ TION AND PLACE. THE SLIGHTEST DIFFERENCE, AND THE HARMONY IS SPOILED.

今有頓漸。緑立宗趣。 宗趣分★。即是規矩〇 宗通趣窮。真常流注。 NOWADAYS THERE IS THE SUDDEN, AND THE GRADUAL SCHOOL.

7. Which may be single, like a septre, or five-pronged or nine- pronged. W e are reminded here of the doctrine of the Trinity. 8. In active phenomena. 9. Supporters. 156 The Hokyozammai

THE SECT IS SET UP, AND DIVIDES ITSELF, ACCORDING TO ITS TEACHING METHODS. THE SECT IS PERVASIVE, AND THE FEATURES COMPLETE, AND TRUTH FLOWS OUT ENDLESSLY.

外寂内動。繫駒伏鼠。 先聖悲之。為法檀度。

HOWEVER, THERE IS STILLNESS WITHOUT, BUT AGITATION WITHIN, LIKE A TETHERED HORSE, OR A RAT UNDER A TUB. THE SAINTS OF OLD GRIEVED AT THIS, AND BECAME PARISHIONERS9 OF THE LAW.

随其顚倒。以緇為素。 顚倒想滅。肯心自許。 要合古轍。請観前古。 仏道垂成。十劫観樹。 如虎之缺。如馬之扉。

BY THIS INVERSION10 11 OF THINGS, BLACK BE­ COMES W H IT E 11. WHEN IT IS DESTROYED, ACCEPTANCE12 13 IS ASSURED IF YOU WANT TO WALK THE OLDEN W A Y ,1* I URGE YOU TO MEDITATE ON THE WISDOM OF THE PAST. TO BECOME A B U D D H A 14 BY MILLIONS OF YEARS OF TREE-GAZING,15 IT IS LIKE A DISFIGURED T IG E R ,16 OR A HOBBLED HORSE.

以有下劣。宝几珍御。 10. Illusion. 11. Good (the colour of the monk’s clothes) becomes bad (the colour of ordinary people’s clothes). 12. Of truth. 13. Thoreau says, “ Turn to the old; return to them. Things do not change; we change.” 14. In the case, for example, of Mahabhinjna Jnanabhibhu. 15. Looking at the Tree of Knowledge. The Hokydzammai 157

以有驚異。S i奴白牯。 羿以功力。射中百歩。 箭鋒相値。功力何預。

AS THERE ARE LOW AND VULGAR THINGS, SO THERE ARE TREASURES AND RARITIES; AS THERE ARE ASTOUNDING AND QUEER THINGS, SO THERE ARE CATS AND WHITE COWS. I, BY HIS MAGIC POWER, COULD HIT A TARGET A HUNDRED PACES AWAY; THE POINTS OF TWO ARROWS MET IN MID­ AIR,—WHAT A FEAT!

木人方歌。石女起舞。 非情識到。寧容思量。

THE MAN OF WOOD SINGS, THE WOMAN OF STONE GETS UP AND d a n c e s 17__ TH IS CANNOT BE DONE BY PASSION OR BY LEARNING, IT CANNOT BE DONE BY REASONING.

臣奉於君。子順於父。 不順非孝0 不奉非輔0 潜行密用。如愚如魯。 但能相続。名主中主。

A RETAINER SERVES HIS LORD; A CHILD OBEYS HIS FATHER. WITHOUT OBEDIENCE, THERE IS NO FAITH­ FULNESS; WITHOUT SERVICE THERE IS NO RETAINER- SHIP. A SPLENDID ACTION, A MYSTERIOUS USE,— THIS IS BEING LIKE A FOOL, LIKE A BOOBY. 16 17

16. It was said that a tiger which injured a man had a blemish in its ears. 17. For the wooden man to sing or the stone woman to dance, all that is necessary is to perform perfectly the ordinary tasks of life and maintain the natural relations between one person another. 158 The Hokyozammai

TO CONTINUE THIS WORK IS TO BE A MASTER AMONG MASTERS.

T h is k in d o f th in g can h a r d ly be fo u n d in E n g lis h re lig io u s literature. I t re m in d s us o f th e T ib e ta n B o o k of the Dead, o r th e re lig io u s w r itin g s o f a n c ie n t A s s y ria , o r o f th e g n o stics; o f Swedenborg, B oehm e, a nd th e prophetical w o rk s o f B la k e . T h e re is no Z e n in it . Chapter XX

THE POEMS OF HANSHAN I

I t is p e rh a p s n o t p o s s ib le to h a ve a c le a r p ic tu r e o f H anshan (K a n z a n ).1 W as h e a T a o ist? a B u d d h is t? a Zen m o n k? an e c c e n tric ? a n a tu ra l? a T im o n o f A th e n s? a poseur? o r a l i t t le o f each? T h e Japanese h a v e tu rn e d h im in to a k in d o f Z en m a d m a n , a nd a rtis ts especially, fo r e x a m p le M in c h o , 明兆， In d r a ， 因陀羅, L ia n g k ‘a i, 梁 楷 ， sh o w h im to g e th e r w ith S h ih td as a co up le o f p o e tic a l lu n a tic s , w ith m a tte d h a ir a nd a p e rp e tu a l g rin o n th e ir faces. T h is a spect o f H a n sh a n has its o rig in in th e P re fa c e to th e Poem s o f H a n sh a n w ritte n b y Liich‘iuyin, 閬丘胤，o f w h o m n o m o re is k n o w n , historically, th a n in th e case o f H a n sh a n h im s e lf. H e says h e w as p e rs o n a lly a c q u a in te d w ith H a n sh a n , S h ih te , and F e n g ka n . F e n g k a n w as hea d p rie s t o f K u o c h *in g T e m p le in T ie n t^ a i (T e n d a i) M o u n ta in s , a nd H a n sh a n and S h ih te o fte n v is ite d th e te m p le a n d w e re on v e ry good te rm s w ith F e n g k a n , th o u g h n o t a lw a y s w ith th e o th e r m o n ks, w h o o fte n d ro v e th e m a w a y. S h ih te , w hose nam e m eans "p ic k e d u p /* w as an o rp h a n , a nd as a b a b y w as p ic k e d u p b y F e n g k a n a nd g iv e n to som eone to re a r h im . S h ih te w as fa r fr o m b e in g a p o e t, b u t w ro te ve rse s; th e fo llo w in g is an e x a m p le :

寒山自寒山，拾得自拾得，凡愚豈見知，豊干却相識， 見時不可見，覔時何処覔。借間有何縁，向道無為力。 H an sha n is o f h im s e lf H a n sh a n ; S h ih te is o f h im s e lf S h ih te . H o w can th e co m m on o r g a rd e n m a n r e a lly k n o w th e m ?

1. In this chapter the Chinese name is given first, as belonging to Chinese literature. In the other chapters, the Japanese pro­ nunciation is used, for it is the Japanese who have preserved Zen. 160 Hanshan

( B u t F eng k n o w s th e m th ro u g h a nd th ro u g h .) I f y o u w a n t r e a lly to see th e m y o u m u s tn ’t ju s t lo o k a t th e m . W h e n y o u w a n t to fin d th e m , w h e re w i ll y o u seek fo r th em ? I ask, “ W h a t is th e r e la tio n b e tw e e n th e m ? ” A n d h a ste n to a n sw e r, “ T h e y a re m en w ith th e omnipotence o f d o in g ‘n o th in g .’ ”

F e n g k a n also w ro te verses, o f an e q u a lly m y s tic a l c h a ra c te r, fo r e x a m p le :

寒山特相訪，拾得罕期来，論心話明月， 大虚廓無礙，法界即無辺，一法普徧該。

H a n sh a n cam e s p e c ia lly to see m e, S h ih te to o , a ra re v is ito r . W e spoke unaffectedly a nd w ith o u t re s e rv e o f th e M in d , H o w v a s t a nd fre e th e G re a t E m p tin e ss, H o w b o u n d le ss th e u n iv e rs e , E ach th in g c o n ta in in g w ith in its e lf a ll th in g s .

T h e poem s o f S h ih te a nd F e n g k a n a re u s u a lly p rin te d to g e th e r w ith th ose o f H a n sh a n . T h e fa m o u s p o e t-m o n k C h 'a n y iie h (Z e n g e ts u ) 832- 912, speaks o f H a n sh a n in a poem se n t to Shutaoshih, 舒道士，o f C h ‘ih s u n g ,赤 松 ，w h ic h is f a ir ly n e a r M o u n t T ‘ie n t‘a i. T h is suggests th a t H a n sh a n m u s t b e lo n g to a b o u t th e 8 th c e n tu ry A.D. T ‘ie n t‘a i, th e h ig h e s t peak o f w h ic h is a b o u t 180,000 fe e t, is th e m o st re m a rk a b le g ro u p o f m o u n ta in s in S o u th -E a s t C h in a . I t w as used b y B u d d h is ts . In th e 6 th c e n tu ry T 'ie n t^ I s tu d ie d B u d ­ d h is m th e re , and Z en a t K u o c h *in g T e m p le , fre q u e n te d b y H an sha n. T h is te m p le , b y th e w a y , s t ill e x is ts , and th e th re e , H a n sh a n , S h ite , and F e n g k a n a re aw o r- s h ip p e d ” th e re . T h e in flu e n c e o f T ‘ie n t‘a i u p o n H anshan m u s t h a ve been g re a t; T a o ism , B u d d h is m , and Zen are a lm o s t e q u a lly m in g le d in h im . In th is re g io n also in th e 8 th c e n tu ry , N a n y u e h (N a n g a k u ) 677-744, and M a ts u ( B a s o ) 馬祖，709-788, w e re e x e rc is in g a g re a t Mountains 161 in flu e n c e in th e flourishing S o u th e rn S ch o o l o f Z « i. The prevalence of Zen in the poetry of Hanshan is seen in the fact that by the end of the T*ang dynasty, it was being read in Zen temples everywhere. In Japan also, where commentaries were written from the Edo Period, these were all by Zen priests. Haktiin Zenji wrote a Z en com 讲entary, jSenfeifcimon，闡提 記 聞 ， which treats Hanshan^ poems as thotigh he were a Zen master. There are 314 poems in the largest edition of Han- shan，s poetry. They have no titles, and the order is different. How many are Hanshan’s we may ask, but we may say the same thing of the sutras and the gospels. Some of the verses are Buddhistic, some Buddhistically moralistic, some moralistic without the Buddhism, some of practical and worldly advice. Hanshan is the name of a mountain; it is the name of a man who lived there; it is the Godhead which Wordsworth also perceived, but to the English poet mountains are at once more homely, more sexual, more fearful, more personal. The Chinese poet’s mountain is more inward, more inexpressive, more Eckhartian, more transcendental. To be noted is the way in which Hanshan used his own name as a kind of first person singular. This is unknown in Chinese poetry, and also in Buddhist or Zen verses. It may be interesting to compare Hanshan with some other English poets. Christopher Smart had the religion and the insanity, but not Hanshan’s kind of mysticism. Perhaps Blake’s “madness” in the closest to Hanshan’s alleged preposterousness, but there is a human joy in Blake which contrasts with the rarefaction, isolation, and other-worldliness of Hanshan. Clare’s love of nature in its minute variety, and hatred of (Words­ worth^) mysticism distinguish him distinctly from Hanshan, but they are alike in misanthropy and failure to be loved by women. This was also the case with Thoreau, who has the same perversity but not the eccentricity, uncouthness, deliberate mystification and Kanzan and Jittoku

On the right is Kanzan, reading his own poems:

吟詩不知調看經不解義 Reciting the verses, he does not know the tune; R e a d in g th e s u tra s , he ca n ’t e x p la in th e m e a n in g .

The tune cannot be separated from the notes; the meaning cannot be divided from the words. On the left is Jittoku:

支帚不除塵指月不忘指 Leaning on the broom, he does not remove the dust; Pointing at the moon, he does not forget the finger.

The broom has an absolute value. As Wilde said, “ All (art) is useless•” The finger and the moon (and the broom) are ends, not means. Indeed, the pointing finger is in a way superior to the moon of truth it points at.

162 Hanshan wanton wilfulness we sometimes feel in Hanshan. Cowper’s madness has not Hanshan’s Chinese toughness of fibre which enabled him (at times) to “overcome the world.” Cowper was too sensitive for this, Christ also. A certain amount of (womanly) poise, the insensitivity of nature, the “enlightenment” of Zen is necessary not merely for the lowest, but for the highest life. A super­ sensitive God would go out of his mind; perhaps He has. The following are the most poetical of Hanshan’s verses, and (therefore) those with most Zen in them. They are in a kind of chronological order.

父母続継多 田園不羡他 婦摇機軋々 児弄口«々 拍手催花舞 稽頤聴鳥歌 誰当来嘆賞 樵客屢経過 My mother and father left me enough to live on, I have no need to grudge others their lands and fields. My wife works at the loom; creak! creak ! it goes. My children prattle and play; Clapping their hands, they dance with the flowers, They listen to the song of the birds, chin on hand. Who comes to pay his respects? A woodcutter, occasionally.

This seems to have been written before Hanshan left his home to become a wanderer, until he settled at Hanshan, the Cold Mountain from which he took his name. Such an earthly paradise as he describes here is not possible in this world. Heaven is a room for one person.

茅楝野人居 門前車馬疎 林幽偏聚鳥 谿濶本蔵魚 山果携児摘 皐田共婦鋤 家中何所有 唯有一床書 Beams with a thatch over them,—a wild man’s dwelling ! Before my gate pass horses and carts seldom enough; Misanthropy 163 The lonely wood gathers birds; The broad valley stream harbours fish; With my children I pluck the wild fruits of the trees; My wife and I hoe the rice-field; What is there in my house? A single case of books.

This also is Hanshan’s pre-Robinson Crusoe life. It is exactly the same as that of Toemmei. It is the ideal life of every man; ideal, not real, not realisable.

我在村中住 衆推無比方 昨日到城下 仍被狗形相 或嫌袴太窄 或説衫少長 撐却鷂子眼 雀児舞堂堂。

I live in a village; And everybody praises me to the skies, But yesterday I went to the town. Even the dog watched me suspiciously; The people don’t like the cut of my coat, Or my trousers are too long or too short for them. If an eagle is struck blind, The sparrows fly openly. The real difference between the town and the village is not so much that the villagers are all trusting and true-hearted fellows, and the townsfolk mean and suspicious, but that the town is bigger than the village. We cannot be known in a crowd. The point of the last two lines seems to be that Hanshan has no economic or social power, and the townsfolk behave to him like the vulgar and stupid people they are. We are irre­ sistibly reminded of Kierkegaard.

昔時可可貧 今朝最貧凍 作事不諧和 触途成倥儒【 行泥屢脚屈 坐社頻腹痛 失却班猫児 老鼠囲飯甕。

I was pretty poor before, Today I am wretchedness and misery itself. Everything is at sixes and sevens. 164 Hanshan I meet suffering everywhere I go. I often slip about on the muddy roads; I get belly-ache when I sit with my neighbours. When the tabby cat is lost, Rats occupy the rice-chest.

Kanzan here shows us his grumbling Zen. On some days everything goes wrong, and life hardly seems worth living; energy (sexual?) is at a low ebb. How­ ever, it is not that some days must be dark and gloomy. It is that darkness and gloom are good in themselves, not as contrasted with bright and cheerful days, nor as a chance for resignation. It is rather

The Devils in Hell, All’s wrong with the world !

一人好頭肚 六藝尽皆通 南見趁向北 西見趁向東 長漂如汎萍 不息似飛蓬 問是何等色 姓貧名曰窮。

Here’s a fine chap, strong in mind and body, He has the Six Accomplishments; But when he goes South he’s driven North, And when he goes West he’s sent away East, Always floating like duckweed, Like “flying grass,” never at rest. You ask, “What kind of man may this be?” His surname is Poverty; the first name is Extremity. The last line reminds us of the Rich Young Ruler in reverse. The Six Accomplishments are: deportment, music, archery, horsemanship, calligraphy, mathematics.

昨夜夢還郷 見婦機中織 駐梭若有思 擎梭似無力 呼之廻面視怳復不相識 怎是別多年 癀毛非旧色。

Last night I dreamed I was back home again, And was looking at my wife weaving. She stopped the loom, and seemed deep in thought, Nostalgia 165 And as though she had not the strength to begin again. I called to her and she looked up at me, But did not recognise me, and stared vacantly. The years are many since we parted, And my hair is not the colour it used to be. This poem would not ordinarily be quoted as an example of Zen, but I wish to take it so. Zen is not medicine for the spiritually afflicted, nor a tonic for the potential hero. It is

Something not too bright or good For human nature’s daily foo3. Hanshan has a yearning for his old life. His dream is a clear example of Freud’s “wish-fulfilment.” And this is as it should be, because it is as it is. Illusion is (a form of) enlightenment. To forgive (one’s own erring) is divine. Chapter XXI

THE POEMS OF HANSHAN II

Hanshan, like every other man, and especially a poet, is more unexpected, more varied than we suppose. He was not always a hermit, and not always a man of the world. To put it more clearly, he was always a hermit, always a man of the world. So we find mingled in his writings poems of ambition and of profundity, of wit and of anguish, of no Zen and of Zen. He has something of Hamlet about him.

城中蛾眉女 珠珮河珊々 鸚鵡花前弄 琵琶月下弾 長歌三月響 短舞万人看 未必長如此 芙蓉不耐寒。 In the citadel there is a beautiful lady; The pearls at her waist tinkle silverly. Among the flowers she dandles a parrot, And plays the lute under the moon. The long tones of her song still linger after three months; The short dance,—all come to see. But this will not continue forever; The lotus flower cannot bear the frost.

In the last word of the poem,寒，cold, the first half of Hanshan’s name, it is not perhaps fanciful to see a reference to his own way of living as compared with that of the beautiful lady. Bunyan’s “He that is low need fear no fall” is also Hanshan’s motto.

吾家好隠淪 居処絶嚣塵 践草成三径 瞻雲為四隣 助歌声有鳥 問法語無人 今曰娑婆樹 為年為一春。 Nature 167 I live in a nice place, Far from dust and bustle. By treading the turf, I have three paths; The clouds I see I make my four walls. To help Nature express itself there are the voices of birds; Here there is nobody to ask about Buddhist philosophy. The Tree of the World is still growing; My short span of spring,—how many years will it be? This is the ideal life, but even here there is a pervasive melancholy.

可笑寒山路 而無車馬蹤 聯溪難記曲 畳障不知重 泣露千般草吟風一様松 此時迷径処 形問影何從。

The way to Hanshan is a queer one; No ruts or hoof-prints are seen. Valley winds into valley, Peak rises above peak; Grasses are bright with dew, And pine-trees sough in the breeze. Even now you do not know? The reality is asking the shadow the way. The last lines, as usual, are suddenly difficult. The meaning is perhaps that the reality is ourselves, and it is useless to question outward things, these “vanish- ings,” for the reality. “Hanshan” is of course the mountain, the man, and reality.

閑自訪髙僧 烟山万々層 師親指帰路 月挂一輪澄。 Quietly I visited a famous monk; Mountains rose one after another through the mist. The master pointed out my way back; The moon, a circle of light, hung in the sky. The journey, the mountains, the mist, the way home, 168 Hanshan and the moon have some obscure mystical meaning. The monk would be perhaps at Tientai, twenty-five miles from Mount Han.

重巖我卜居 鳥道絶人跡 庭際何所有 白雲抱幽石 住玆凡幾年 屢見春冬易 寄語鐘鼎家 虚名定無益。

I dwell below boulders piled one upon another. A path fit for birds ! It only prevents people from coming. The garden,—can you call it a garden? The white clouds embrace ineffable rocks; How long have I lived among them all? How many times have I seen spring depart, seen winter come again? But avoid the dinner bell and banquets galore, Beware of names empty and profitless.

The last two lines are as usual what old Mr. Weller would have called “a sudden pull-up.”

家住緑巖下 庭蕪更不芟 新藤垂繚鐃 古石豎巉巖 山果獼猴摘 池魚白麓銜 仙書一両卷 樹下読喃々。 My hut is beneath a green cliff, The garden a wilderness; The latest creepers hang down in coils and twinings, Ancient rocks stand sharp and tall. Monkeys come and pick the wild fruits; The white heron swallows the fish of the pools. Under the trees I read some Taoist books; My voice intones the words and phrases. This is both ideal and real, like Thoreau’s life at Walden, but has a faint undertone of something else in it, however skilfully hidden.

憶得二十年 徐歩国清帰 国清寺中人 尽道寒山癡 癡人何用疑 疑不解尋思 A Fool 169

我尙自不識 是伊争得知 低頭不用問 問得復何為 有人来罵我 分明了々知 雖然不JS対 郤是得便宜。 These past twenty years !—thinking of them, How I have walked quietly back from Kuoch^ng Temple, And all the people of the temple. Say of Hanshan, “What a nincompoop he is !’’ Why do they call me a fool, I wonder? But I can’t decide the question, For I myself don’t know who “I” is, So how can others possibly know? I hang my head; whafs the use of their asking? What good can thinking about it do? People come and laugh at me. I know quite well what they think of me, But I am not foolish enough to retort to them, Because they do just what I want them to do.

This reminds tis of Blake^ Proverbs of Hell:

Listen to the fool’s reproach ! It is a kingly title!

And this is not to be taken in a cynical or scornful way but more philosophically. It takes a great man to know a great man, and a fool sees only fools. If a fool saw a wise man as wise the wise man would be a fool.

荘子説送終 天地為棺槨凡帰此有時 唯須一番箔 死将锸青蠅 弔不労白鶴 餓著首陽山 生廉死亦楽。 Chuangtse told us about his funeral, How Heaven and Earth would be his coffin. There is a time to die, And just one hurdle will do. Dead, I shall be the food of blow-flies; I won’t give white cranes the trouble of mourning for me. To starve on Mount Shouyang,— Ifs a gallant life, a joyful death. 170 Hanshan In the Chapter entitled 列禦寇， we are told that when Chuangtse was about to die his disciples met and dis­ cussed what kind of funeral they should give him. Chuangtse said,

M y c o ffin w i ll be H e a ve n a nd E a rth ; fo r th e fu n e ra l o rn a m e n ts o f ja d e , th e re a re th e S un a nd M o o n ; fo r m y p e a rls and je w e ls , I s h a ll h a v e th e S ta rs and Constellations; a ll th in g s w i ll be m y m o u rn e rs . Is n o t e v e ry th in g re a d y fo r m y b u ria l? W h a t sh o u ld be added to th is ?

I t w o u ld n o t be easy to d e fe n d H a n sh a n fro m th e ch a rg e o f b e in g b o th a misanthropist a nd misogynist. H e h im s e lf says in one o f h is poem s:

本将兄共居，縁遭他輩責， 剰被自妻疎。

I liv e d w ith m y o ld e r b ro th e r, B u t I w as tre a te d c r u e lly b y m y neighbours, M o re o v e r, I w as n e g le c te d b y m y w ife .

H an sha n says th a t “ a n yo n e w h o w a n ts to re a d m y poems m u s t ke ep h is m in d p u re ,” 凡読我詩者，心中須護浄• In th e sam e p oem H a n sh a n says th a t “ to a tta in enlightenment to d a y , w e m u s t be a s w ift as th e J u lin g D e m o n ,” 今曰得仏 身，急々如律令. The J u lin g D em on is sa id to be th e same as th e T h u n d e r S p ir it, a nd th u s H a n sh a n is te llin g us to be as g e n tle as doves and as w is e as se rp en ts, fo r Z en w is d o m co nsists in b e in g to o q u ic k to a llo w th o u g h t and e m o tio n to a ssert th e ir independence. H anshan h a d n o t a v e ry h ig h o p in io n o f th e a ve ra g e m an, and e s p e c ia lly p o e try he f e lt to be a bo ve h is head. “ I f yo u w r ite a poem on a ric e -c a k e , even a s tra y dog w o n ,t e at i t . ” O f h im s e lf, and h is id e a ls , h e says:

人問寒山路 寒山路不通 夏天氷未釈 日出霧朦朧。 A Zen-less Zen 171

P e o p le ask th e w a y to H an sha n, B u t th e re is no w a y to H an sha n. T h e ic e does n o t m e lt even in su m m er, A n d e ven i f th e sun s h o u ld ris e , dense v a p o u rs c lo th e i t ro u n d .

A s in K a fk a , th e ro a d , th e w a y , T h e W a y, is uN o Thoroughfare V9 H a n sh a n , as sa id a t th e b e g in n in g , is a v e ry m ix e d c h a ra c te r. H is Z e n is m in g le d w ith a s p ir it o f d e s p a ir, even desperation, w h ic h is th e a n ti­ th esis o f Z en . B u t as T h o re a u says, i t is w ro n g to systematise o u r th o u g h t and o u r experience. L e t i t be as i t is, contradictions and a ll, a nd w e s h a ll th e n becom e even m o re re a l, m o re h u m a n th a n H a m le t and H an sha n. Chapter X X II

ZEN, MYSTICISM, AND EXISTENTIALISM

O f th ese th re e , existentialism has th e m o st Z en, I w o u ld say. T h is s ta te m e n t suggests tw o th in g s , fir s t, th a t “ Z e n ” is v e ry d iffic u lt to use w ith a s in g le m ean­ in g ; second, th a t h o w e v e r m u ch I m a y speak i l l o f (o th e r p e o p le ’s) Z en, and in d e e d to th a t e x te n t, i t is “ y e t th e fo u n ta in lig h t o f a ll o u r d a y, A m aster-light o f a ll o u r se e in g .” (W o rld ) m y s tic is m is th e e x p e rie n c e o f an e v e r­ p re s e n t, a b o rig in a l oneness. I t is th e re u n io n o f th e I and th e n o t- I. (C h in e s e ) Z en, in its h is to r ic a l o rig in s in th e Upanishads, and fo r L a o tse a nd C hu an gtse, is th e sam e; o n ly in its m e th o d , its s ty le , is i t dissim ilar, and o f co urse a d iffe re n c e o f s ty le is a d iffe re n c e o f essence. (E u ro p e a n ) existentialism is th e e xp e rie n ce o f th e e te rn a l s e p a ra tio n o f th e I, n o t fro m th e n o t- I, b u t fro m th e P e rs o n a l A b s o lu te th a t stands o u tsid e b o th . M y s tic is m is a re -u n io n o f th e in d iv id u a l so u l w ith th e O v e r-s o u l. Its m a rk is jo y ; i t grasps E te r n ity fo r o n ly s h o rt tim e s . Z en also is an identification (to g e th e r w ith an e q u a lly “ re a l” separation) o f th e s e lf and th e S e lf, and th u s enlightenment is th e sam e e n lig h te n ­ m e n t fo r e v e ry b o d y ( in s p ite o f th e a lle g e d “ separa­ tio n .”） Its m a rk is peace o f m in d , and th e E te rn a l is n o w , o r n e v e r. Existentialism is, w e m u s t suppose, d iffe r e n t fo r e v e ry p e rso n ; even i f i t is th e same, w e h a ve no w a y o f experiencing th e fa c t. Its m a rk is a n g u ish , w h ic h is never-ending, fo r th e r e la tiv e ca n n o t r e a lly g ra sp th e a b so lu te , and y e t i t is som ehow “absolutely” b o u n d to t r y to do so. A Personal God 173

M y s tic is m has no th o u g h t. I t is p u re se n sa tio n a p ­ p lie d to th e D iv in e . Al-Ghazzali, a P e rs ia n m y s tic o f th e 1 1 th c e n tu ry , w ro te in h is autobiography, “ T h e tra n s p o rt w h ic h one a tta in s b y th e m e th o d o f th e S u fis is lik e an im m e d ia te perception, as i f one to u c h e d th e o b je cts w ith o n e ，s h a n d .” In Z e n w e th in k a nd th in k u n til th o u g h t is c o n fro n te d w ith th e abyss o f U n ­ th o u g h t, a nd w e th e n ju m p in to th a t abyss. Existential­ ism is s im ila r, b u t th e th in k in g n e v e r stops. “ I f th e S un a nd M o o n s h o u ld d o u b t, T h e y ’d immediately Go O u t,” says B la k e th e m y s tic . In existentialism th e sun and m oo n a re a lw a y s flickering, g u tte rin g . D e a th and resurrection a re simultaneous a nd endless. M y s tic is m is an e x p e rie n c e o f a lln e ss, Z e n o f this-thing-ness. O n ly existentialism is m o d e st e n o u g h to say th a t th e e x is te n c e o f an A b s o lu te a t th e b a c k o f a ll th e re la tiv e s is n o t so m e th in g th a t can be k n o w n , a n d th a t o u r s e p a ra tio n fro m G od is re p e a te d in o u r e q u a lly a b s o lu te s e p a ra tio n fro m each o th e r. O ne d e fe c t o f Z e n is its la c k o f personality, a nd o f Personality. Z e n n is ts m a k e fu n , in v e ry p o o r ta s te , o f a p e rs o n a l G od a nd o f an in d iv id u a l s o u l. I m y s e lf b e lie v e in n e ith e r, b u t th e re is n o th in g lu d ic ro u s in th e id e a th a t personality, h u m a n o r d iv in e , is th e h ig h e s t fo rm o f b e in g w e can co n ce ive . F if t y m illio n Je w s can’t be w ro n g . In a c tu a l fa c t, n o t o n ly w e , b u t e v e ry ­ th in g else is p e rs o n a l. I f th e I is p e rs o n a l, so is th e n o t- I, fo r i t is th e u n iv e rs e w h ic h is th u s ch op pe d in to tw o ; a n im is m is th e essence o f a ll tr u e p o e try a nd re lig io n . T h is o f co u rse has n o th in g to do w ith th e im ­ m o r ta lity o f th e s o u l, o r a d iv in it y th a t shapes o u r ends. S in ce Z en , m y s tic is m , a nd existentialism a re fo rm s o f experience, th e c la im s o f a ll th re e m u s t be conceded, fo r re a l e x p e rie n c e is infallible. A l l th re e w o u ld say th a t, n o t in s p ite o f, b u t r a th e r because o f th e c o n tra d ic ­ tio n s o f experience, i t m u s t be b e lie v e d . H o w e v e r, th e in te lle c t s h o u ld n o t b e fo rg o tte n . I t is th e in te lle c t w h ic h te lls us th a t th e m o m e n t th e se th re e ste p b e y o n d 174 Zen, Mysticism, Existentialism e x p e rie n c e in to explanation o r s y n th e s is o r a n a ly s is o r p ro o f a nd d is p ro o f, w e s h o u ld n o t m e re ly re fu s e to a ccep t i t b u t d e c la re th a t i t is n o t o n ly n o t tru e , b u t fa ls e . In th e w o r ld o f p o e try (a n d p o e try is th e com ­ m o n e le m e n t o f Z en, m y s tic is m , a nd existentialism ) commonsense ju d g e m e n ts a re n o t s im p ly in v a lid ; th e m o re th e y a re r ig h t th e m o re th e y a re w ro n g . Z en , w ith its twenty-eight In d ia n p a tria rc h s a nd a lin e o f “ m in d to m in d ” c o n tin u in g d o w n to th e p re s e n t d a y, has p e rs is te d fo r 2,500 ye a rs , 3,000, i f w e in c lu d e pre-Buddhistic Hinduism—unchanged; h o w can w e im p ro v e on N irv a n a ? T h e mysteries—pantomimic E g y p tia n , o ffic ia l Eleusynian, o rg ia s tic O rp h ic , g u s h in g P h ry g ia n , m ilitaristic M ithraic—were a ll p riv a te and individual, n o t p u b lic a n d s o c ia l. In d e e d , i f m an is a s o c ia l a n im a l, th e m y s tic is n o t a m a n . L a te r cam e th e m y s tic is m o f th e Montanists; th e G n o s tic s ; th e N e o - platonists; th e 1 3 th c e n tu ry B e g h a rd s a nd B e g u in e s; th e 14th c e n tu ry B re th re n o f th e F re e S p ir it; th e F rie n d s o f G od, u n d e r E c k h a rt, T a u le r, a nd S uso; th e 16th c e n tu ry C h ris tia n K a b a lis ts ; th e 1 7th c e n tu ry P h ila d e l­ p h ia n s , th e R a n te rs , S e eke rs, Muggletonians, F a m ily o f L o v e , th e L e v e lle rs , th e D ig g e rs ; th e C a m b rid g e Platonists; th e 1 8 th c e n tu ry M artinists; th e Q u ie tis ts ; th e M o ra v ia n B re th re n , th e Rosicrucians; th e D u k h o - b o rts y , n o t to sp ea k o f th e H a s id is ts , D u n k e rs , B a h a ists, a nd so on. In s p ite o f a ll these, m y s tic is m has in i t so m e th in g un-integrating, w h ic h , m o re th a n its h e re tic a l “doctrines,” has a lw a y s m ad e i t su spe ct to th e C a th o lic C h u rc h . Existentialism is p o s itiv e disintegration, a n a rc h y , ( c iv il) disobedience. “ S o u ls a re n o t saved in b u n d le s .” （T h e ) Z en (s e c t) w i ll one d a y d is a p p e a r; as S h a k a m u n i th e fir s t Z e n n is t sa id on h is d e a th -b e d , “ A ll th e constituents o f b e in g a re transitory.” M y s tic is m is a lre a d y practically non-existent. O n ly existentialism g am ble s on its inconsequentiality, its Uniqueness, its discontinuity, o n its v e ry la c k o f suc­ cession; existentialism a lo n e w i ll c o n tin u e , o r n o t. Suffering 175

W h e n w e th in k o f th e nam es m e n tio n e d in co nn ec­ tio n w ith existentialism_ Kierkegaard: “ I t is n o t a distinguishing q u a lity o f th e w a y th a t i t is h a rd , b u t a distinguishing q u a lity o f th e a fflic tio n th a t i t is th e w a y ;” N ie tz s c h e : “ M y o p in io n is m y o p in io n ; a n o th e r p erson has n o t e a s ily a r ig h t to i t ; ” Ja sp e rs: “ O ne does n o t p ro v e Transcendence, one bea rs w itn e s s to i t ; ” M a rc e l: “ Esse est co-esse;” S a rtre : “ M y d e a th is th e one m o m e n t o f m y lif e I do n o t h a v e to liv e ;’’ H e id e g g e r: “ G r ie f se p a ra te d fro m m e re m e la n c h o ly b y a gap, is jo y w h ic h is s e re n ifie d f o r th e M o s t Jo you s, so lo n g as i t re se rve s its e lf and hesitates;^ to w h o m some w o u ld add P a sca l: “ T h e I is h a te fu l;” Dostoevsky: “ A lw a y s and in e v e ry th in g I go to th e e x tre m e lim it ; ” and K a fk a : “ T h in k o f m e as a d re a m ;” I w o u ld in c lu d e T h o re a u : “I say God- I am n o t su re th a t is th e nam e. Y o u w i ll k n o w w h o m I m e a n ;” 一 w h a t a m o tle y c re w ! A c re w w ith o u t a s h ip . (Z e n ) B u d d h is m is th e r e lig io n o f (th e escape fr o m ) s u ffe rin g . N irv a n a is a s ta te b e y o n d (p le a s u re a n d ) p a in . M y s tic is m also is th e d e s ire fo r “ a rep ose th a t e ve r is th e sam e,^ an escape fr o m loneliness. Existential­ ism , on th e c o n tra ry , is th e e scap in g fr o m c o m fo rt a nd tranquillity o f m in d . I t is n o t m aso chism , a t le a s t in th e o ry , fo r its a im is s u ffe rin g , n o t th e p le a s u re o f s u ffe rin g . Kierkegaard says in h is J o u rn a l, 1853，“ T o lo v e G od is to s u ffe r.” T h e a im o f existentialism is to re ig n , and to re ig n w ith H im w e m u s t s u ffe r w ith H im , b u t to s u ffe r is to re ig n , to re ig n is to s u ffe r. (O n e o b liq u e p ro o f o f th e e x is te n c e o f G od, w h ic h K ie rk e ­ g aa rd w o u ld h a v e sn ee re d a t, is : G od is lo v e ; lo v e is s u ffe rin g ; s u ffe rin g e x is ts , th e re fo re G od does.) In a n y case, as fa r as s u ffe rin g is co n ce rn e d , existentialism w in s a ll h an ds d o w n , le a v in g Z en a nd m y s tic is m t r a il­ in g fa r b e h in d w ith th e ir jo y o f enlightenment and ecstasy o f u n io n . Z en m a y b e c a lle d th e r e lig io n o f d e a th , th e cessation o f th e d e s ire to e x is t. (Prim itive) B u d d h is m , w ith its 1 7 6 Zen, M ysticism, Existentialism d o c trin e o f n o -s o u l, ta u g h t th a t w e n e v e r r e a lly liv e ; w e o n ly th in k w e do, a n d w h e n w e k n o w w e don t, w h e n w e k n o w th a t w e a re n o t w e , a nd lif e is illu s io n , th is is N irv a n a . T h e p o s itiv e sid e o f th is d o c trin e is b ro u g h t o u t b y th e fo llo w in g . I once re c e iv e d a le tte r fro m D r. S u z u k i D a ise tz. O n th e e n v e lo p e m y nam e was transliterated in to th re e C h in e se characters,不 来 子 ， P im ii- s h i，w h ic h also m eans, “ Y o u h a v e n ’t com e (to see m e fo r a lo n g tim e ) ：9 B u t i t has fu r th e r a Z en m ean­ in g , MM r N o t-c o m in g O ne,^ th a t is, (th e re a l) y o u has n o t com e, w i ll n o t go; y o u c a n n o t d ie , because y o u are a “not-born-person •” M y s tic is m has th e sam e a ttitu d e . I t is so e n a m o u re d o f tim e le s s lif e th a t i t “ n e v e r th in k s o f a n y th in g less th a n d e a th .” （H o w e v e r, th e “ d a rk n ig h t o f th e s o u l,” d e s c rib e d b y M ad am e G u yo n , St. J o h n o f th e C ross, S t. T he resa , a nd o th e rs, is th e fe a r o f a th ir d k in d o f d e a th , s p ir itu a l emptiness.) T he existential a ttitu d e to (another’s) d e a th is th a t i t is w h a t y o u m a ke it . T h o re a u says, “ F rie n d s a re as o fte n b ro u g h t n e a re r as se p a ra te d b y d e a th .” Ja spe rs agrees w ith h im . I t is m y fid e lity to a dead p e rso n w h ic h m a in ta in s h is (objective) e x is te n c e ( fo r m e) ju s t as i t d id d u rin g h is life tim e . F o r Kierkegaard tru e p re p a ra ­ tio n fo r o n e ^ o w n d e a th is d e a th its e lf. H e says, in Concluding Unscientific Postscript, uW e w is h to k n o w h o w th e co n c e p tio n o f d e a th w i ll tra n s fo rm a m a n ’s e n tire life , w h e n in o rd e r to th in k its uncertainty he has to th in k i t in e v e ry m o m e n t, so as to p re p a re h im ­ s e lf fo r i t " D e a th is to S a rtre “ a cancellation a lw a ys p o ssib le o f w h a t I can be, w h ic h is o u ts id e m y p o s s ib ili­ tie s i t is s im p ly a fa c t, and th e fa te o f th e dead is in th e hands o f th e liv in g . H e id e g g e r, h o w e v e r, says th a t d e a th is so m e th in g w e h a v e th e fre e re s o lu tio n to ta k e u p o n o u rse lve s. L o v e (as w e le a rn e d fro m B orn Free, and L iv in g Free) m eans m a k in g a n o th e r fre e , fre e in g o th e rs. L o v e is w a n tin g w h a t G od w a n ts , th a t is, w h a t th e o th e r p e rso n re a lly , fr e e ly w a n ts . T h e lo v e o f tw o p e o p le is Love 177

n o t, as P la to p re te n d e d , th e c o m b in in g o f complementary characteristics; n o r does i t d e riv e fro m s im ila r ity o f c h a ra c te r o r ta ste s; i t is n o t th a t y o u lik e cats, o r B a ch , so do I ，s o le t’s liv e to g e th e r. I t is n o t even W o rd s w o rth and D o ro th y a n d th e g lo w w o rm , a nd “ O h ! jo y i t w as fo r h e r a nd jo y fo r m e V9 L o v e is th e unbreakable re la tio n b e tw e e n fa ith a n d faithfulness. T h e m a n says, “I am an existentialist.” T h e w o m a n says, “I lo v e an existentialist; le t’s g e t m a rrie d , o r n o t, ju s t as y o u lik e .” ( I f th e y a re sin c e re , w h ic h is m o s t u n lik e ly , th e ir lif e to g e th e r w i ll be a success.) P e rh a p s T h o re a u ’s lo v e le tte r to E m e rso n ’s w ife is an e x a m p le : “ T o h e a r th a t y o u h a ve sad h o u rs is n o t sad to m e.” T h e re is no lo v e in Z en, o th e r th a n th e b e a tin g a nd c u rs in g , a nd none in m y s tic is m , e x c e p t o f a nauseating, p e rv e rte d , u n n a tu ra l, im p o s s ib le k in d ~ th e ‘ ^D iv in e E m b ra c e ” o f Suso; ‘^rny ch e e k on H im ,” （S t. J o h n o f th e C ro s s ); “ th e D iv in e Bridegroom” o f S t. Theresa—a ll o f w h ic h go b a ck to th e e ro tic is m o f th e O rp h ic m y s te rie s . I n The Hound of Heaven, lo v e is a co sm ic bestialism. T w o th o u sa n d y e a rs o f th e deep e x p e rie n c e o f C h ris tia n m y s tic is m co n vin ce s us o f th e e x is te n c e o f th e G od w ith w h o m c e rta in m e n a n d w o m e n a tta in e d u n io n (w h ic h m a y w e ll be r e u n io n ) . F ifte e n h u n d re d y e a rs o f e q u a lly s tre n u o u s se a rch fo r th e tr u t h in C h in a a n d Japan u n d e r th e a egis o f Z en has n e v e r once, e ven b y a ccid e n t, p ro d u c e d th e s lig h te s t in k lin g o f a p e rs o n a l D e ity : A god, a g od th e ir se ve ra n ce r u le d ! T h e re is th u s n o (p e rs o n a l) G od in Z e n (Buddhism); th a t is th e d e fe c t o f Z e n . T h e re is a G od in (Christian) m y s tic is m ; th a t is th e d e fe c t o f Christianity. B u t I b e lie v e T h o re a u , as I b e lie v e th e B ib le (w h e n I b e lie v e i t ) , in th e fo llo w in g : “ H is w o r k does n o t la c k com ­ p le te ne ss, th a t th e c re a tu re co nse nts.” “ H e has n o t m ad e us to do w ith o u t H im •” “ T h o u g h w e m u s t a b id e o u r d e s tin y , w i ll H e n o t a b id e i t w ith us?” W h o o r w h a t 178 Zen, Mysticism, Existentialism

is th is “ H e ”？ . In Z en, s in n in g is to th in k th a t w e h a ve c o m m itte d s in . In m y s tic is m , s in a nd its im m e d ia te consequence, o r ra th e r, coincidence, H e ll, is th e s o u l’s s e p a ra tio n o f its e lf fro m G od b y s e lf-lo v e . In existentialism , s in is sin; it is th e in f ir m it y o f th e c re a tu re as a g a in s t th e p o w e r o f th e C re a to r. S in is egoism , n o t th e egoism o f Z en, w h ic h is g iv e n u p to g a in th e enlightenment o f e g o fu l egolessness, b u t th e ego ism o f su p p o sin g th a t w e can be saved fr o m o u r egoism . F o r existentialism, s in is practically unforgivable s in . Is th e re such a th in g as th e ego, w h ic h Christianity (m y s tic a l a nd existentialist) v io le n tly asserts, and (prim itive) B u d d h is m e q u a lly s tro n g ly denies? T he Z en a n sw e r is , o r s h o u ld be, th a t th e re is a nd th e re is n 't— n o t p a r tly is a nd p a r tly is n o t, o r fro m one p o in t o f v ie w is a nd fro m a n o th e r p o in t o f v ie w is n o t~ ~ b u t th a t th e s o u l is -is n ，t. T h is is th e Z e n experience. T he m y s tic a l e x p e rie n c e is o f n o -s o u l, o f S o u l. T h e e x ­ is te n tia l e x p e rie n c e is o f s o u l in its s e p a ra tio n fro m S o u l, th o u g h a c c o rd in g to S a rtre ’s p h ilo s o p h y th e so u l is a nothingness. M y grandmother once cam e hom e fro m c h u rc h la u g h in g . W h e n h e r c h ild re n asked h e r w h y , she s a id ，“ T h e p e o p le w e re a ll s in g in g , ‘O h, to be n o th in g , nothing!’_ and th e y w ere n o th in g , a ll th e t im e !’’ T h is is existentialism . T h e enlightenment o f Z en is th e realization th a t w e a re everything. E cstasy in m y s tic is m is th e sam e, th e s ta te o f o u r b e in g a ll th in g s . Existentialism is th e realization th a t i t w ill n e v e r be n ece ssary to s in g ，“ O h, to be n o th in g !’’ Z en, in conjunction w ith T a o ism , has p ro d u c e d th e g re a te s t a r t a nd p o e try in C h in a a nd Ja p a n . M y s tic a l a rt, i f th e re is a n y, m u s t be as o d io u s as m y s tic a l p o e try (see th e O x fo rd B o o k o f M y s tic a l V e rs e ). W ordsworth’s re a l n a tu re p o e try , e x c e p t fo r th e Im m ortality and T in te rn A b b e y Odes, is n o t m y s tic a l o r even pantheistic, b u t Z e n ; th e sam e m a y be sa id o f th a t o f H e rb e rt and V a u g h a n and T ra h e rn e . Existentialism can h a rd ly Humour 179 p ro d u c e (v e rs e ) p o e try , w h ic h re q u ire s a h ig h deg re e o f te c h n iq u e a nd a rtific e . I t does h o w e v e r m a n ife s t its e lf in th e Pensees o f P a scal, Fear and Trembling, Thus Spake Zarathustra, th e Journals o f T h o re a u , and, b y e x c e p tio n , th e p o e try o f D. H. L a w re n c e . I t s h o u ld be n o te d , as fa r as a r t is co n ce rn e d , th a t ju s t as th e o rd in a ry , s o -c a lle d C h ris tia n k n o w s n o th in g o f th e re a l Christianity, so Kierkegaard, in E ith e r/O r, w as o u ts id e th e re a l aestheticism, w h ic h is as p ro fo u n d as w e lik e to m a ke it . Kierkegaard h a d no m o re understanding o f m u sic th a n B e rn a rd S h aw . H e lis te n e d to D o n J u a n e th ic a lly , as th e s to ry o f a se du cer, b u t M o z a rt h im s e lf w as seduced in to co m p o sin g it . M o z a rt’s b e st m u s ic is f u ll o f €

tio n , la c k o f self-criticism , a nd u n io n w ith an in fe r io r d e m iu rg e . T h e d a n g e rs o f existentialism a re m aso chism and d e m o n ism . W e m a y say th a t H itle r h a d a k in d o f Zen, in th e w a y h e w a lk e d , lik e a p a n th e r. H is id e n tifi­ c a tio n o f h im s e lf w ith a p u r e ly fic titio u s D e u tsch e R e ich , lik e h is lo v e o f W a g n e r, w as m y s tic a l. H e perpetually chose blessedness ( in r e a lity a k in d o f “cursedness”） in s te a d o f h a p p in e ss; th is w as h is existentialism . In a d d itio n , h e b e lie v e d in th e non-separation o f th e a n im a te and th e in a n im a te , a nd w o u ld p e rh a p s h a ve agreed w ith T h o re a u , w h o w ro te (a passage d e le te d b y L o w e ll) o f a p in e tre e , “ I t is as im m o rta l as I am , and p e rcha nce w i ll go to as h ig h a h e a ve n , th e re to to w e r above m e s t ill. ” U p to th is p o in t w e h a ve distinguished Z en , m y s tic is m , and existentialism . N o w le t us m ix th e m u p a b it, and o u rse lve s in to th e b a rg a in . Z e n is n o t a re lig io n . I t is n o t “ T h e H ig h e s t D o c trin e .” T h e re is n o <4W o rld o f Z en .” A n “ A n th o lo g y o f Z e n ” is an a b s u rd ity (th e B ib le o f Z en, th e M urrtonkan p lu s th e Hekiganroku, is th e u n iv e rs e la u g h in g a t its e lf.) Z e n is n o t s o m e th in g a b so lu te , th a t w e g ra d u a lly a p p ro a ch , o f w h ic h o u r understanding in cre a se s w ith experience. I t is n o t so m e th in g “ once fo r a ll d e liv e re d to th e (Z e n ) s a in ts .” I t is n o t T ru th sm u g g le d fr o m o ne esotericist to a n o th e r. Z en is a ll th a t w as, w a s n ’t, is, is n ’t, w i ll be, a nd w o n ’t. I t is th e b illb o a r d w e can see ju s t as m u c h as th e tre e i t h id e s. I t is e q u a lly a n d u n e q u a lly in th e v illa g e s lu t and th e V ir g in M a ry , in an e m p ty t in can a nd “ th e s o lid fra m e o f e a rth / A n d ocean’s liq u id m ass.” H e id e g g e r asks, ‘*W hy is th e re s o m e th in g , a nd n o t n o th in g ? ” Z e n is th e s o m e th in g , th e n o th in g . Z en is B ra m a h , a nd in c lu d e s th e sw a m is a nd th e sw oo nie s and m oonies a n d b a b o o n ie s to o n ie s . The Scale of Perfec­ tion, a 1 4 th c e n tu ry re lig io u s tre a tis e , says th a t w h e n w e go h o m e to a s m o k y h ouse a nd a s c o ld in g w ife — do n o t r u n o u t o f it , uiov b e h in d th is nothingness, b e ­ h in d th is fo rm le s s shape o f e v il, is Jesus h id in h is 182 Zen, Mysticism^ Existentialism

jo y .” B u t e ven th is m u s t b e a m e nd ed ; th e s m o k y house, th e s c o ld in g w ife is Jesus in h is jo y . In th is m y s tic is m w e h a ve th e Z en e x p e rie n c e th a t illu s io n , th a t is, r e a lity , th e sm o k y house, is enlightenment, th a t is, r e a lity , Jesus — b u t n o t in th e sam e w a y , as H a k u in Z e n ji says, th a t ic e is w a te r. J u s t as ic e is ice , n o t w a te r, so illu s io n is enlightenment. A n d illu s io n and enlightenment a re d iffe re n t, ju s t as w a te r and ic e a re th e sam e. W e m a y say th a t th e re is “something” w h ic h is n e ith e r ic e n o r w a te r; w h ic h is b o th ic e a nd w a te r, w h ic h is e ith e r ice o r w a te r, b u t n o t b o th . T h is “something” w o u ld be lik e T h o re a u ’s G od, m e n tio n e d b e fo re , lik e E c k h a rt’s, w h ic h also is nam eless, n o t in th e dictionary, b u t i t is also Kierkegaard’s G od, n o t e cto p la sm , n o t less p e rso n a l b u t m o re so th a n e ven Kierkegaard h im s e lf. Z en is w h a t w e ca n ’t say i t is, n o t because i t is b e yo n d w o rd s o r sounds, fa r fro m it , b u t because i t is b e yo n d its e lf. W h e n I l i f t m y h a n d , th e re is Z en , a nd w h e n I d o n ，t, and w h e n th e re is no h a n d to l i f t , and w h e n th e re ’s no l i f t to h a n d . A s T h o re a u says, “ S ound te sts o u r soundness,” b u t a n y sound w i ll do. “ T h e s q u e a kin g o f th e p u m p sounds as necessary as th e m u sic o f th e spheres.” A n d N ie tzsch e says, “ I t is a c ru c ia l fa c t th a t th e s p ir it p re fe rs to descend u p o n th e s ic k a nd s u ffe r­ in g .” G od is in fin ite ly n e a r us, as B ro w n in g k n e w , and in fin ite ly fa r fro m us, as C o w p e r also k n e w . ( I f o n ly H e w o u ld be one o r th e o th e r !) A m a n is “ s u p e rio r” to a stone. Yes, b u t w h y d id W o rd s w o rth lis te n so ^evoutly to “the music of that old stone wall”？ Was i t d u e to h is b e in g to n e -d e a f? O r is a w a ll som ehow “ s u p e rio r” to T h is b e a nd P y ra m u s , w h o g ra te fu lly use even a c ra c k in it? O n th e one h a n d w e k n o w th a t p e o p le a re s h a llo w a nd unteachable, and th a t th e re is m o re d iffe re n c e b e tw e e n M o z a rt and m e th a n betw e en a p ia n and a m o n k e y ; on th e o th e r, as W u y e h (M u g 6 ) s a id ，“ I f y o u s t ill re ta in a h a ir ’s th ic k n e s s o f an id e a o f th e re b e in g such th in g s as o rd in a ry m en and sages, yo u ca n n o t a v o id b e in g re b o rn as a d o n k e y o r a h o rse .” My Religion 183

T h e o rth o d o x v ie w o f Z en is th a t w ith o u t m a n Z en is impossible. So in B u d d h is m , i f th e re a re no h u m a n b e in g s th e re is no B u d d h a . T h is is w ro n g . T h e m is ­ ta k e a rise s fro m anthropocentricity, w h ic h a g a in causes and is caused b y th e la c k o f m y s tic a l and a n im is tic experiences. A R om an C a th o lic , R o b e rt S o u th w e ll, k n e w b e tte r:

W h o le m a y H is b o d y be in s m a lle s t b re a d , W h o le in th e w h o le , yea, w h o le in e v e ry c ru m b .

T h e fir s t lin e o f th e poem o f th e 4 6 th Case o f th e Hekiganroku is :

虚堂雨滴声

T h e sound o f th e ra in -d ro p s in th e e m p ty h a ll.

S engai has a p ic tu r e o f a b lin d m a n p la y in g a sam isen u n d e r th e m oon, a n o th e r m a n lo o k in g u p a t it , and tw o o th e rs ju s t e n jo y in g themselves; th e v e rs e on i t :

見石見◎ 呔人〖c e :乇态;k 秋◦月 T o see, o r n o t to see, T h a t is m a n ’s q u e s tio n — B u t th e a u tu m n m o o n !

M an is n o t th e o n ly m e a su re o f a ll th in g s . E a ch th in g m easures its e lf, is in tr in s ic ; a nd m ea sures a nd is m easured b y a ll o th e r th in g s , is e x trin s ic . Existential­ ism m akes th e sam e m is ta k e h e re as (o rth o d o x ) Z e n ; i t is to o man-centred. W e see n o w h o w m u c h Z en a nd m y s tic is m a n d existentialism need each o th e r. T h e o th e r d a y som eone asked m e, fo r th e second tim e in m y life , w h a t m y r e lig io n w as. (T h e fir s t tim e I a n sw e re d t r u ly , b u t injudiciously, th a t I w as a ve g e ­ ta ria n .) T h is tim e I s a id : 1. I b e lie v e in th in g s , o r ra th e r, I b e lie v e th in g s . 2. T hese th in g s a re a ll e q u a lly ( b u t a lso m o re o r less, a c c o rd in g to in te r n a l a nd e x ­ te rn a l circumstances) v iv id , liv e ly , life-having, lif e ­ 184 Zen, Mysticism, Existentialism g iv in g , “ a liv e .” 3. T h e u rg e o f (m y o w n ) lif e is to g e t c lo se r and c lo s e r to th in g s . 4. T h e c lo s e r w e g e t th e fa rth e r w e fe e l, and th e g re a te r th e a n g u ish o f separation. T h e fir s t is Z e n ; th e second, a n im is m ; th e th ir d , m y s tic is m ; th e fo u r th , existentialism . T o con­ c lu d e w ith a c o m p a riso n b e tw e e n th e tw o e xtre m e s, th e la s t and th e fir s t: Kierkegaard w ro te : “ N o d o u b t can com e sn e a k in g in b e tw e e n th e w a y and th e affliction, fo r th e y a re e te rn a lly inseparable.” A m o n k sa id to Y iie n s h a n (Y a k u s a n ), “I h a ve a d o u b t, and I w o u ld lik e y o u to re s o lv e i t . ” Y iie n s h a n sa id , “ W a it t i l l th is e v e n in g , and I w ill re s o lv e i t fo r y o u .” In th e e ve n in g th e m o n ks a ll assem bled, and Y u e h sh a n sa id to th e m , “ T o d a y, one o f y o u asked m e to re s o lv e h is d o u b t,” and th e m o n k cam e fo rw a rd . Y u e h sh a n le f t h is seat, to o k h o ld o f h im , and c rie d , “ L o o k , e v e ry b o d y , th is m o n k has a d o u b t!” pushed h im a w a y, and w e n t b a ck to h is ro o m . Chapter X X III

WAYS, AND THE WAY

Is th e re su ch a th in g as T h e W ay? Is i t n o t ra th e r, as th e Japanese seem to b e lie v e b y in s tin c t, th a t a re ju s t as m a n y w a ys as th e re a re (ty p e s o f) persons? Is th e re such a th in g as good ta s te a nd b ad ta s te , o r o n ly m y (g o o d ) ta s te a n d y o u r (b a d ) ta s te a nd h is? A ll re lig io n is fo r T h e W a y ; a ll e x p e rie n c e a nd co m m on sense is a g a in s t it . B u t m a rria g e , th e o rd in a ry m a r­ ria g e p re sum es th a t a t le a s t th e se tw o p e o p le h a v e one w a y b e tw e e n th e m , a nd th e m a rria g e o f tw o m in d s in g e n e ra l, w h e th e r in so un d o r w o rd s o r fo rm o r c o lo u r, presupposes th a t th e w r ite r has h is re a d e rs , th e m u s ic ia n h is a u d ie n ce , th e philosopher h is disciples,—but h a v e th e y , re a lly ? W h o can jo in w h a t G od h a th p u t asunder? A g a in , N a tu re p o s s ib ly , a n d e ven p ro b a b ly , has A P u rpo se, b u t s t ill m o re p ro b a b ly w i ll ch an ge th is P u rp o se fo r a n o th e r i f circumstances d e m a n d it . J u s t as w e h u m a n b e in g s a re s u b je c t to a ll k in d s o f a c c id e n t, so is N a tu re h e rs e lf, a n d does w h a t ca n be done, n o t w h a t ca n ’t. A m a n w h o has a w a y is o n ly a k in d o f a n im a l a fte r a ll. A m a n w h o th in k s h is is T h e W a y deceives h im s e lf n o d o u b t. B u t as N ie tz s c h e sa id , som e k in d s o f e rro rs a n d d e lu s io n s a re as n e ce ssa ry fo r life , th a t is , fo r th e W a y , as tr u t h is , p e rh a p s m o re so. N a tu re d e ce ive s u s; w e d e c e iv e o u rs e lv e s ; b u t N a tu re also d ece ive s h e rs e lf, a nd th is is th e justification o f existentialism , w h ic h m eans th a t e v e ry m a n m u s t d e ce ive h im s e lf a n d no o th e r p e rso n . “ L e t N a tu re be y o u r te a c h e r” in th is also. A m a n is n o t ju s t a n o th e r a n im a l in th e u n iv e rs a l 186 Ways, and the Way

Zoo. H e is, and m u s t b e lie v e th a t he is, n o t o n ly a m o v e m e n t to w a rd s s o m e th in g , b u t to a c e rta in e x te n t a lre a d y th a t S o m e th in g . T h e “ O ne fa r - o ff, d iv in e e v e n t to w h ic h th e w h o le c re a tio n m oves” is o c c u rrin g h e re a nd n o w . B u t th e p re s e n t p ro b le m is n o t w h e th e r h u m a n ity has its W a y o r n o t, b u t w h e th e r m in e is th a t W a y o r o n ly m y w a y . A W a y im p lie s tw o necessary conditions; fir s t, p e o p le w a lk in g on it , m o re o r less consciously; second, an u ltim a te g o a l, m o re o r less u n ­ k n o w n and unknownable, b u t b e lie v e d to e x is t. T he n u m b e r o f p e o p le a c tu a lly w a lk in g th e w a y is n o t o f co urse so im p o rta n t as th e ir q u a lity , b u t i t is necessary th a t th is m in o r ity s h o u ld be so to speak th e spear end, n o t th e b u tt end. M a jo ritie s w ill a lw a y s p erse cu te m inorities, b u t th e m a jo r ity , th o u g h n e v e r r ig h t, is n o t a lw a y s w ro n g , (u s u a lly th e y a re ju s t n o th in g a t a ll) , and th e re fo re th e m in o r ity , th o u g h n e v e r w ro n g , is n o t a lw a y s r ig h t. W e ta lk o f “ r ig h t” and “ w ro n g ,” b u t w h a t is th e s ta n d a rd b y w h ic h to decide? T h e a n sw e r is c le a r: th e re is none, and even th is a n sw e r ca n n o t be m ade dogmatically. W e m a y h o w e v e r v e n tu re a lit t le fu r th e r on th is u n c e rta in g ro u n d , a nd a ssert, as a c o ro lla ry o f th e fir s t sentence in L a o tse , th a t to th e e x te n t th a t a w a y d e cla re s its e lf to be T h e W a y, i t is n o t. T h e re is a lin e o f J o h n C la re th a t a p p lie s h e re :

S ile n t is th e lif e o f flo w e rs .

T h e W a y o f flo w e rs is a s ile n t one, n o t th a t flo w e rs d o n ’t speak because th e y can’t, b u t because th e y d o n ’t h a p p e n to w a n t to . O f co urse th e y w o u ld , lik e th e stones o f J e ru s a le m w h e n C h ris t e n te re d th e c ity , c ry o u t i f th e y d id h a p p e n to w a n t to . T h e ir e xp re ssive s ile n c e is w ille d , n o t involuntary. T h e life , th e W a y o f m en is also s ile n t, b u t th e s ile n c e is a d iffe r e n t one, and m a y be in w o rd s . T h o re a u says, “ I t ta ke s a m an to m a ke a ro o m s ile n t•” T h is S ile n c e n e v e r stops, w h a t ­ My Way 187

e v e r n o ise w e m a y m ake . Christianity, B u d d h is m , H u m a n is m , Z en , Existentialism , Naturalism,—these a re a ll noises, a re a ll b u b b le s on th e s u rfa c e o f th e e v e r- flo w in g r iv e r . A s a c h ild I used to s in g :

N o w th e d a y is o v e r; N ig h t is d ra w in g n ig h ; S hadow s o f th e e v e n in g S te a l across th e s k y .

T h is is th e r iv e r ; th e s ile n c e , th e w a y , w ith n o unn ece s­ s a ry c a p ita l le tte r . T h is is th e W a y, b u t h o w s h a ll w e w a lk on it , and s h a ll i t be a lo n e , o r h a n d in h a n d , a nd i f so, w ith w h o m ? W h a t s h a ll w e do, w h a t s h a ll w e n o t do, a nd h o w s h a ll w e do it , a nd n o t do i t ; in th is w a yle ss w o rld , w h e re p e o p le h a ve re s ig n e d th e m se lve s to s p in n in g ro u n d lik e te e to tu m s o f som e b ra n d o r a n o th e r? L e t m e p u t m y cards on th e ta b le , fo r I th in k I h a ve a good h a n d , n o t th e w h o le p a ck, c e rta in ly , b ut.. . . I am a p a c ifis t, le ttin g o th e r p e o p le d e fe n d m e fro m a ll th o se m illio n s w h o w o u ld ro b m e o f m y w o r ld ly goods, lib e r ty , a n d lif e its e lf; a v e g e ta ria n w h o se shoes a re m ade o f le a th e r; a te a c h e r w h o teaches th a t o n ly te ach ers a re h u m a n , b usine ss m en , politicians, d o c to rs , la w y e rs and so on b e in g m e re p a ra s itic blackmailers, and w h o teaches also th a t p e o p le a re unteachable. T h e m ost im p o rta n t th in g o f a ll, th e m o s t h u m a n th in g is , as D.H. L a w re n c e sa id , to h a v e r ig h t re la tio n s w ith a p a r tic u la r w o m a n . B y “ r ig h t re la tio n s ” I m ean, as L a w re n c e d id n o t, th a t she s h o u ld w a lk th e W a y (w h ic h , as is q u ite e v id e n t b y n o v /, m eans m y w a y ) in th e sam e w a y as I do, a lb e it w ith a w o m a n ’s leg s. She m u s t th e n be a p a c ifis t, a vegetarian, a (studentless) te a ch e r, o r w h a t is m u c h th e sam e th in g , a (te a c h e r­ less) s tu d e n t. In a d d itio n she m u s t h a ve no in te re s t in m o n e y, h e r o w n , 01，o th e r p e o p le ’s; no a m b itio n , no d e s ire “ to im p ro v e h e r s o u l’s e sta te .” A n y b o d y b u t B a ch a lw a y s a nd M o z a rt so m e tim e s is to b e lis te n e d to 188 Ways, and the Way

w ith o n ly h a lf an e ar. E v e ry a r tic le o f d a ily lif e is to be chosen w ith th e g re a te s t ca re (n o t th e g re a te s t m o n e y ); cups a nd k e ttle s m u s t be th e b e st th a t a lit t le m o n e y w i ll b u y . T ra in s , buses, b u ild in g s , s tre e ts and th e p e o p le in th e m a re a ll seen w ith th e s o rt o f h o rro r, th a t D a n te f e lt as h e gazed a ro u n d in th e In fe rn o . T he u g lin e s s , th e s tu p id ity , th e meaninglessness ! She n e v e r re a d s th e newspapers, th e advertisements, B u d d h is t m ag azin es; has no recreations o r amusements; a lw a y s b u sy, she does n o th in g “ to pass th e tim e ,” 一i t a ll sounds so t e r r ib ly sn o b b ish a n d h ig h b r o w ! B u t w h a t do C h ris tia n s th in k th e y a re g o in g to do in H eaven? W h a t b oo ks a re th e y g o in g to read? D o th e y th in k th e y a re g o in g to p la y Jo h a n n S tra u ss on th e ir g o ld e n harps? D a n te w as n o t so cheap as to suppose th a t p e o p le ta lk e d shop even in L im b o . P e o p le seem to w a n t to liv e g re e d ily and v u lg a r ly n o w , because th e y th in k th e y w o n ’t be a b le to do so in th e n e x t w o rld . I t w i ll be seen th a t th is “ W a y ” does n o t im p ly th a t each p e rso n is to liv e h is o w n life , d e v e lo p in g h is o w n ta le n ts , to liv e as h is n a tu re u rg e s h im , in a w o rd , to be fre e . H e has to liv e as m y n a tu re te lls m e to liv e , a nd u rg e s m e to u rg e h im to liv e . In d e e d , th e fir s t step is to change h is o w n c h a ra c te r, to lo v e snakes and h a te ja z z ; to despise le a d e rs o f in d u s try and a d m ire th e industrious a n t; to a b h o r B u d d h is t so cie tie s and International C u ltu re ; to d is lik e s o c ia lis m as m u ch as capitalism; to lo v e p e o p le w h o r e a lly lo v e s o m e th in g o r so m e bo dy; to be u n w illin g a bo ve a ll th in g s to ta lk a b o u t T he W a y and such nonsense. F u rth e r, th is W a y does n o t g u a ra n te e a n y k in d o f s p ir itu a l success, peace o f m in d , efficiency, good h e a lth , self-confidence, concentration o f o n e ，s p o w e rs, s a to ri, “ e v e ry d a y sp e n t u s e fu lly and h a p p ily ,” so th a t w e le a v e th e w o rld a b e tte r p la c e th a n w e fo u n d it. W o rd s w o rth a nd h is s is te r D o ro th y , T h o re a u , Basho, N ie tzsch e , Kierkegaard, S w ift, Cowper,—the liv e s o f such p e o p le a re n o t h e ld u p as m o d e ls fo r e a rn e st yo u n g Determinism 189 p e o p le , b u t th e y w e re a t le a s t s tra y in g a lo n g th e W a y.

T o go b a c k to th e o rig in a l q u e s tio n , 一 a re th e re d if ­ fe re n t w a ys fo r d iffe re n t p e o p le , o r is th e re O ne W a y fo r e v e ry b o d y ? T h e a n sw e r is th a t each individual, p u re ly subjectively a nd w ith a b s o lu te fre e d o m o f ch oice c o u ld , ( b u t does n o t) a r r iv e a t th is O ne W a y b y ac­ c id e n t. In th is w o rld , each in d iv id u a l lif e is d e te rm in e d Calvinistically; h is c h a ra c te r a t b ir th decides to w h a t e x te n t h e s h a ll w a lk th is W a y. G od, th a t is, N a tu re , decides w h o s h a ll go to H ea ven , i.e . w a lk th e W a y, o r n o t. A m a n ’s e ffo rts a re o f l it t le avaH . H o w e v e r m u ch w e s u p p o rt th e A n im a l W e lfa re S o c ie ty , i t m akes no d iffe re n c e to o u r re a l lo v e o f a n im a ls (H e a v e n ) o r re a l indifference to th e m ( H e ll) . T e a c h in g and w r it ­ in g and s ittin g u n d e r B o -tre e s and d y in g on crosses h a ve n o th in g to do w ith o th e r p e o p le ’s s a lv a tio n . Y e t th o u g h w e k n o w th is , and w h e n w e k n o w th is , and because w e k n o w th is , w e c o n tin u e to te a ch a nd w r ite and s it and d ie fo r o th e rs . W h y? T h is is th e W a y. Chapter X X IV

NATURE, HUMAN NATURE, THE BUDDHA NATURE, THE POETIC NATURE

N a tu re m eans th e w h o le u n iv e rs e , m a te ria l and s p ir itu a l. O r i t m a y m ean th e u n iv e rs e e x c e p t m an and w h a t h e has cre a te d . B u t w h e n i t is sa id th a t “ th e Japanese lo v e N a tu re ,M N a tu re m eans flo w e rs , s m a ll b ird s , riv e rs a nd m o u n ta in s (n o t volcanoes), ta m e o r u s e fu l a n im a ls , a nd so on, a v e ry s m a ll p a r t o f N a tu re , and a t p re se n t, n o t a m illio n y e a rs ago o r in th e fu tu re , and e x c lu d in g sco rp io n s, b a c te ria , earthquakes and so on. T h e m o st p re s s in g q u e s tio n is, does N a tu re lo v e ns, as re lig io n b e lie ve s, o r does i t h a te us, as Shakespeare th o u g h t in K in g Lear a nd M acbeth, o r is i t indifferent to us, as m o st p e o p le to d a y fe e l? (T o suppose th a t N a tu re so m e tim e s lo ve s us, so m e tim e s h ate s us, is som etim es indifferent to us, seems to m e, as i t d id to E u rip id e s , impossible.) W e m a y a sk a q u e s tio n w h ic h is a n o th e r fo rm o f th e sam e q u e s tio n : do y o u lo v e N a tu re , h a te N a tu re , o r a re y o u indifferent to N a tu re ? These tw o p a irs o f alternatives c o rre sp o n d e x a c tly , fo r lo v e , h a tre d , and indifference a re a lw a y s m u tu a l, as D a n te d e cla re s: to lo v e is to be lo v e d , to h a te is to be h a te d , to be indifferent is to re c e iv e indifference. B u t a c tu a lly , o u r r e la tio n to N a tu re , o u r re a l re la tio n , is n o t one o f these th re e , n o r a combination o f th e m ; i t is n u m b e r fo u r. H u m a n n a tu re in v o lv e s fiv e e le m e n ts, fir s t, th e so- c a lle d fir s t la w o f N a tu re , self-preservation. A s D .H . L a w re n c e said, “ A r t fo r m y sake.” Second, th e re is th e e q u a lly o r p e rh a p s m o re fundamental ( i f T o ls to y w as n o t m is ta k e n ) in s tin c t o f th e preservation o f o th e rs. T h e re is m a rria g e and procreation; th e re is self-sacrifice. The Buddha Nature 191

T h ird , m a n d e sire s th e impossible, th e in fin ite , th e e te rn a l; h e w ish e s to be omniscient, omnipotent. T h e fo u r th is an o dd one: m a n d esire s to s u ffe r, to s u ffe r fo r its o w n sa ke; th is is c o m m o n ly c a lle d m asochism , b u t th e p le a s u re in p a in is to som e e x te n t a d e s ire fo r a d e p th o f e x p e rie n c e w h ic h m e re p le a s u re h a rd ly g ive s. L a s t, a nd s tro n g e s t o f a ll, th e re is th e d e s ire fo r d e a th , fo r nothingness; w e fin d th is to o w e ll e xpressed b y C h ris tin a R o s s e tti. T hese fiv e th in g s to g e th e r m a k e u p o u r h u m a n n a tu re . T h e B u d d h a n a tu re is n o t o n ly o u rs, b u t th a t o f a ll cre a tu re s, and e ven o f insentient, a p p a re n tly s o u l-le s s th in g s . E v e ry th in g in th e u n iv e rs e s h a ll u ltim a te ly becom e B u d d h a , th a t is, e v e ry a n im a te and in a n im a te b e in g is o f such a n a tu re th a t i t w i ll becom e th e A ll. T h is sounds v e ry fin e , a nd I m y s e lf fe e l s tro n g ly in ­ c lin e d to b e lie v e it . T o go to H e a ve n to g e th e r w ith d ro w n e d ra ts and s tic k s a nd stones a nd p im p s and d ru n k a rd s , even su cce ssfu l b usiness m en a nd politicians, — th is s u its m e d o w n to th e g ro u n d . B u t has th e dog th e B u d d h a n a tu re ? In s p ite o f w h a t Jo sh u said, th e a n sw e r is Yes. M u s t I th e n d ie lik e a dog? T h e a n sw e r a g a in is Yes. I am n o t g o in g to H e a ve n a t a ll th e n , n o r th e dog n o r th e d ro w n e d ra ts and so on? N o, y o u a re n o t. I f th is is w h a t h a v in g th e B u d d h a n a tu re m eans, one w o u ld b e ju s t as w e ll o ff w ith o u t it . A fte r a ll, w e m u s t a sk Z e n to h e lp us o u t o f o u r d e s p a ir, and o u t o f o u r h op e as w e ll. T h e tr u t h is th a t w e h a ve n o t a n y s p e cific th in g th a t can b e c a lle d th e B u d d h a n a tu re , o r s h a ll w e n o t r a th e r say th a t w e b o th h a ve i t and do n o t h a ve it , a t th e sam e tim e . I t is tru e th a t w e h a ve no im m ortality, b u t w e h a ve so m e th in g fa r b e tte r, w e h a ve tim e , a nd w e h a v e timelessness. O r le t us say th a t w e h a v e s o m e th in g b e tw e e n th e tw o ; w e h a ve tim e :

A h , S u n flo w e r, w e a ry o f tim e , T h a t c o u n te s t th e steps o f th e sun. 192 The Buddha, the Poetic Nature

W e w a n t to escape fro m tim e :

S e e kin g a fte r th a t sw ee t g o ld e n c lim e W h e re th e tr a v e lle r ^ jo u rn e y is done.

B u t i t is th e se eking , th e a s p irin g , th e m o v e m e n t w h ic h is th e th in g . O u r B u d d h a n a tu re is o u r b eco m in g Buddha. This “becoming” has tw o aspects: we are a lre a d y th e re ; o u r jo u rn e y is a lre a d y d on e; w e have fo u g h t th e good fig h t. B u t w e s h a ll n e v e r a rr iv e th e re ; w e s h a ll lose e v e ry b a ttle w ith th e s tu p id ity and d u ll­ ness o f o u rse lve s and o th e rs . W e m u s t te a ch th e u n - te a c h a b le ，dotheim possible ，m aketinieeternaL W h a t is th e p o e tic n a tu re ? T h in g s m ea n; th e y m ean d e e p ly ; th e y m ean infinitely. T h is is th e ir p o e tic n a tu re . H o w e v e r, th o u g h th e y s im p ly m ean, and do n o t m ean so m e th in g , th e y m ean to us, and w e a re m e a n t b y th e m . T h e p o e try o f a th in g and a p e rso n a rises fro m th e ir conjunction. A flo w e r b y its e lf is everything, no d o u b t, b u t on th e o th e r h a n d i t is n o th in g . A h u m a n b e in g is th e same, b u t w h e n these tw o everythings o r n o th in g s com e to g e th e r, w e g e t so m e th in g ; th e p o e tic n a tu re is a c tiv a te d . A p o e t is th e tru e m an . A n u n p o e tic a l m an is a m o n ke y. B u t th e p o e tic a l n a tu re b elon gs to N a tu re as w e ll as to h u m a n n a tu re . P u rp o se , w h ic h is u n ­ conscious p u rp o se , is a lw a y s k n o w n b y th e re s u lt. I t w as N a tu re th a t p ro d u ce d th e poet» a nd th is w as “ th a t one fa r - o ff d iv in e e v e n t to w h ic h th e w h o le c re a tio n m oves.” N a tu re , h u m a n n a tu re , th e B u d d h a n a tu re , th e p o e tic nature,—these a re a ll one th in g , (th o u g h th e y are also d iffe re n t th in g s ). H u m a n ity is im p lic it in th e va stest, e m p tie s t space. W e sp ea k r ig h t ly o f a s to n y sile n ce , o r a w oo de n expression. T h e B u d d h a n a tu re is s im p ly o u r o w n deepest n a tu re . M o m e n ts o f v is io n , o u r p o e tic h o u rs, a re th ose o f Buddhahood; th e re is no o th e r. W h e re v e r w e lo o k , w e see N a tu re , w e see o u r h u m a n n a tu re , w e see th e B u d d h a n a tu re , w e see th e p o e tic Human Nature 193

n a tu re . A ll th a t w e to u c h and s m e ll and ta s te and h e a r also is so. T h is is th e re a l C h ris tia n life , th o u g h w e do n o t b e lie v e in Christianity. I t is th e re a l B u d ­ d h is t life , th o u g h B u d d h is m is fa r fro m us. I t is th e lif e o f Z en, th o u g h w e h a v e n o t th e s lig h te s t id e a w h a t Zen is . Chapter X X V

DEFECTS OF ZEN

T he o ld p ro v e rb , “ I t is a fo u le b y rd th a t fy le th h is ow n e n e st,” expresses th e h u m a n d is lik e o f tr u th , fo r o u r n e st is th e u n iv e rs e . T hu s, to a tta c k r e lig io n — n o t a r e lig io n , fo r th a t o n ly in v o lv e s persecution and p e rh a p s d e a th _ is to be a cosm ic Judas, a nd b e tra y humanity,—to w h a t? O f course, a syste m o f th o u g h t and fa ith m ig h t be p e rfe c t a lth o u g h its a d h e re n ts a re n o t, a nd in th a t case, i t w ill be u rg e d , w e s h o u ld a tta c k th e b e lie v e r, n o t h is (ostensible) b e lie f. H o w e v e r, Z e n is n o t a syste m , a th e o ry , an id e a l, a n d can c la im no im m u n ity on th a t g ro u n d . E m pson, in h is b o o k on M ilto n , says th a t h e has a l­ w a ys th o u g h t o f ( M ilto n ^ ) G od as a v e ry w ic k e d person. H e m eans th a t he th in k s M ilto n w as a v e ry w ic k e d p e rso n , and I agree, b u t th e re is no o th e r G od th a n M ilto n ’s G od and E m p son ’s G od and B ly th ’s G od. D id a n y o th e r G od e x is t, w e c o u ld h a ve no k n o w le d g e o f H im ; even re v e la tio n c a n n o t re v e a l, as fa r as re lig io u s m a tte rs a re co nce rn ed , m o re th a n a p e rso n can grasp w ith h is o w n a b ilitie s . T h u s th e u n iv e rs e is equivalent, e th ic a lly and religiously, to th e b e st m a n in it . A W a y o f L ife is as good as, and no b e tte r th a n th e p e o p le w h o w a lk it . T h e re is no P la to n ic , a b s tra c t, id e a l Z e n ; even i f th e re w e re , as sa id b e fo re , i t w o u ld h a ve no m e a n in g fo r us, fo r w e liv e b y o u r o w n Zen, n o t Z en 's Zen. B u d d h is m lo n g ago saw a ll th is , and th e d iffic u lty w as co vered , in tw o senses o f th e w o rd , b y th e d o c trin e o f te m p o ra ry te a c h in g fo r th o se w h o c o u ld n o t e n te r th e h ig h e r re a lm s o f B u d d h is t transcendence. Perfection and Imperfection 195

A n o th e r o b je c tio n to th e ra d ic a l c r itic is m o f Z e n is th a t s in ce Z en c a n n o t be d e fin e d , has n o dogm as, is b e yo n d te a c h in g , a n d is essentially non-dichotomous, i t c a n n o t h a v e e ven a n y good p o in ts , le t a lo n e bad ones. T o p u t th e m a tte r in a n o th e r w a y , Z en is th e b e st o f everything, th e p e rfe c te d la te n t in th e im p e rfe c t, th e a b s o lu te its e lf, so w e can n e ith e r p ra is e n o r b la m e it , o n ly liv e in i t w ith h u m b le g ra titu d e . C h ris t also says, aB e y e p e rfe c t, e ve n as y o u r F a th e r in H e a ve n is p e r­ fe c t/* and i t m a y be a d m itte d th a t so m e tim e s som e o f o u r a c tio n s a re p e rfe c t, a re Z e n -lik e , in th e sense th a t th e y a re th e b e st p o s s ib le u n d e r th e g iv e n c o n d i­ tio n s fo r th a t p a r tic u la r p e rso n w ith h is unavoidable lim itations. B u t a “ p e rfe c t” a c t b y an im p e rfe c t b e in g is s t ill fa r fro m p e rfe c t in th e re a l sense o f th e w o rd , and a p e rfe c t b e in g w o u ld n o t a c t a t a ll. T h e e a rly C h ris tia n m y s tic s used th e w o rd “deification,” n o t a lto g e th e r heretically, to e xpress th e unio mystica, b u t is th e G od w ith w h o m th e y w e re “ o ne d ” as intolerant, uneducated, unhumorous, to n e -d e a f, unpoetical, in ­ a rtis tic , c ru e l, a nd s tu p id as th e y o fte n w e re ? So w ith Zen. M y Z en k ills cats w ith h o rro r, b u t n o t so N a n se n ’s. E nd la u g h s zazen to sco rn , b u t w h a t do o th e rs say? D r. S u z u k i sees Z e n in a bull-fighter; I see i t in th e b u ll. <4If y o u h a v e n o t h a d kensho, w h a t y o u say a b o u t Z en is n o t w o rth lis te n in g to .” B u t h o w l it t le sense and sensibility, h o w m u c h p rid e a nd p re ju d ic e is sh o w n b y m a n y w h o h a v e h a d i t ! Z e n is o n ly a n o th e r a b so lu te , b u t th is tim e d e v o id o f attributes, fre e d o m u n lim ite d , in n a tu re lik e E c k h a rt’s nam eless G odhead, so th a t w e w o u n d o u rs e lv e s in a tta c k in g it ,

F o r i t is , as th e a ir , invulnerable, A n d o u r v a in b lo w s m a lic io u s m o c k e ry .

Z e n is excessively m o n is tic , a fa u lt o f p h ilo s o p h y and science, o r ra th e r, a f a u lt w h ic h is p h ilo s o p h y and science. T h e a n c ie n t In d ia n s d is c o v e re d o r in v e n te d th e O v e r-S o u l. T h e C hin ese , th o u g h n o t philosophical in 196 Defects of Zen th e E u ro p e a n sense o f th e w o rd , s o u g h t a fte r T h e W a y, a s y n th e sis a n d an o rig in o f a ll th e ( a c tu a lly ir r e ­ concilable, intellectually) d is p a ra te and contradictory physico-spiritual fa c ts o f lif e as h u m a n b e in g s in p a rt m a ke it . Z e n is o ne o f these W ays, in d e e d W a y w h ic h c a n n o t b e c a lle d a w a y ，” a n d th e re fo re an E te rn a l W a y. T h e b o d y appears to be a u n ity , a nd w a lk s u p o n o n ly one w a y a t a tim e , a nd p roceeds fro m one sp e c ific p la ce to a n o th e r s p e c ific p la ce , b u t m a n is n o t su ch a s im p le c re a tu re . H is h om e is th is w o rld , th is p la ce , th is m o m e n t, b u t i t is also in f in ity a nd timelessness. H e m a y w a lk b a c k w a rd s as h e w a lk s fo rw a rd s , o r m o ve a lo n g motionlessly. T h e g o a l o f lif e is also a lre a d y rea che d. “I h a v e fo u g h t th e good fig h t; h e n c e fo rth ( th a t is , in th e e te rn a l p re s e n t) is la id u p fo r m e a c ro w n o f g lo ry .” T h u s th e w o rd “ w a y ，” e s p e c ia lly w ith a c a p ita l le tte r , is lik e a ll m e ta p h o rs , n o t m e re ly m is ­ le a d in g , b u t th e v e ry e rr o r o f th e m oon. T h e Japanese, w h o a re e ven less philosophical th a n th e C hinese, a nd m o re p o e tic a l, h a v e a lw a y s stressed th e particular, th e co n cre te . “ H a v e a cu p o f tea !” T he te a is o f course th e u n ive rse ^ b u t w e m u s t p re te n d i t is n o t. T h e sound o f th e w a te r w h e n th e fr o g ju m p s in to th e o ld p o n d is th e m u s ic o f th e spheres, b u t w e m u s tn ’t say so. T h e Japanese a re b y n a tu re pluralistic and polytheistic, in s p ite o f th e Im p e r ia l W a y, and B u sh id o . W h e n th e y ta lk generalities, th e y ta lk , as th e y sh o u ld , nonsense. Z e n has th e o p p o s ite te n d e n c y o f m a k in g tw o in to one, o f in s is tin g th a t ic e a nd w a te r a re r e a lly th e sam e, as in H a k u in Z e n jis Wasan. In Z en th e s o u l m u s t “ becom e th e th in g i t contemplates •” W h e n w e a re asked, “ A liv e , o r d e a d ? ，，, w e m u s t a n sw e r “ Yes !” B u t suppose w e a re asked w h ic h is b e tte r, th e m u sic o f B ach o r o f Sousa? W h ic h is b e tte r, th e ve rse o f C la re o r E lla W h e e le r W ilc o x ? W e c a n n o t a n sw e r Yes to these. W e m u s t com e d o w n on one sid e o f th e fe n ce o r th e o th e r. A re w e to g iv e a Z en a n sw e r o r a r a tio n a l one? Z e n is n o t u n a w a re o f th is difficulty, and Tea 197

d e cla re s th a t “ i t is a Z en o f th e liv in g , fo r u n to Z en a ll liv e ,” th a t enlightenment is illu s io n , th a t sam eness is difference. H o w e v e r, th ese a re also statements, o f m o n ism , a nd in b e in g so a re as dichotomous as th e b e st o f th e m . Z en s h o u ld n o t a sse rt th a t th is is th a t, th a t a ll is one, o r one is a ll. I t s h o u ld n e v e r g e n e ra lis e o r particularise. I t s h o u ld n e ith e r speak n o r be s ile n t. In Z en w e d r in k te a as i f n o t d rin k in g , as i f d r in k in g th e u n iv e rs e , b u t o n ly “ as i f . ” T h e resurrection o f C h ris t is a s w in d le ; dead is dead. K e a ts w as a lia r ; h e c o u ld n o t becom e a s p a rro w o u ts id e th e w in d o w and p e c k in th e g ra v e l. I t is n o t r e a lly p o s s ib le to d r in k te a a nd n o t d r in k te a a t th e sam e tim e , fo r in p h y s ic a l fa c t th e te a is e ith e r d ru n k o r n o t. Y o u ca n ’t h a ve y o u r ca ke and eat i t to o in th e p h y s ic a l w o rld , a nd th e p h y s ic a l a nd s p ir itu a l w o rld s a re one, a c c o rd in g to Z en . I t m a y be said, “ I t is p o s s ib le to d r in k te a a nd n o t d r in k te a a t th e sam e tim e in th e s p ir itu a l w o rld , a nd th e s p ir itu a l and p h y s ic a l w o rld s a re one, a c c o rd in g to Z e n ,” 一fro m w h ic h w e can n o w see th a t th e s p ir itu a l a n d th e p h y s ic a l w o rld s a re n o t one, as th e m o n is ts a ssert. T h e re is o n ly one p ro b le m : Is th e w o r ld G ood o r Bad? Is lif e lik e Grace Abounding a nd Pilgrim's Pro­ gress, o r lik e The T ria l a nd The Castle? Does th e u n iv e rs e “ lo v e ” us, a nd do w e, as individuals, ris e fro m bad to good, a nd fr o m good to b e tte r? O r a re w e a ll sin n e rs a g a in s t th e H o ly G h ost, g u ilty o f w h a t s in w e k n o w n o t; is th e Unattainable also th e M a le fic ? B y m e re ly c o n tin u in g to liv e , m o st m e n ta c itly a d m it th a t th e y th in k th is lif e b e tte r th a n n o th in g a t a ll. Z en presum es, a n d p ro v e s to its d evotees, th a t its w o r ld is G ood, a nd e n a b le s th e m to liv e a f a ir ly untroubled, th o u g h n o t necessarily good, life . T h e w o rd G ood im ­ p lie s th a t b a d is s w a llo w e d u p in it . B y B a d w e m ean th a t th e u n iv e rs e is meaningless. T h is is h o w e v e r n o t lo g ic a lly conceivable, s in ce i f th e u n iv e rs e is m e a n in g ­ less as a w h o le , i t is meaningless in its p a rts . B u t “ B a d ,” le t a lo n e “ b a d ,” m eans s o m e th in g , th e re fo re . • 198 Defects of Zen Whether the universe is Good or Bad is of course decided subjectively; our “objective” evaluation of each individual’s subjectivity is decided by consideration? of his sensibiUty, depth, and strength in their various proportions, for example, Christina Rossetti^ longing for death, the life-thrill of Lawrence, Arnold’s resigna­ tion， Wordsworth’s joy, Christ’s extremes of fatherly love and divine forsaking, Virgil’s lacrimae rerum, Nietzsches amor fati, Kierkegaard^ fear and trembling, the destiny of Spengler, the purposelessness of Kafka, Eckhart’s godhead, Shakespeare’s tale told by an idiot, 一 to these must be added the sublime nonchalance of Zen, but both sublimity and nonchalance are attained at a cost. Every religion involves an insensibility to certain things. For Christians in general, and Roman Catholics in particular, the infinite and eternal suffer­ ing of animals is not a matter for religious meditation. Buddhists groan out their sutras heedless of the cantatas of Bach. It is difficult for a poet or an artist or a musician to attain enlightenment, perhaps impossible; he may, indeed he must, be born with something like it. A soldier, a horse-slaughterer, a politician, a doctor, the principal of a school, a hedge-parson, a business­ man, a jockey, a lawyer, an airman,—these should all get enlightenment so as to make money or bamboozle people or murder one another, directly or indirectly, with the utmost efficiency, but they need also something that will make them change their professions, and this is not Zen. After all, an incompetent, dissatisfied carpenter is “better” than an expert, complacent cosmetics manufacturer. What is the standard by which we judge all things, judge Zen itself, which is the essence of Christianity, the essence of Buddhism? It is not morality, or aesthetics, or science; it is “poetry,” a faculty by which we know the living truth, the value of a thing or person or action, or manner. All real Zen is poetry, but not all poetry is Zen. It is poetry by which we live, more Illusion 199 o r less, b y w h ic h w e e n d u re th e lo v e o f o th e rs , and e n jo y th e m a lic e o f th e u n iv e rs e . P o e try tra n s m u te s e v e ry th in g in to its e lf, b u t p o e try is a k in d o f p a in , w ho se d e p th re c o n c ile s us to it . Is th e w o r ld bad, o r B ad? T hom as H a rd y th o u g h t i t w as B a d , a nd th a t fo r th is v e ry re a so n i t g ive s us an opportunity fo r tra g ic in te g r ity . I f th e w o r ld is B a d , le t each m a n do zazen, a nd g e t h is s a to ri, p la y and lis te n to th e Forty-eight P re lu d e s a nd F u g u e s; p a in t p ic tu re s a nd lo o k a t th e b e st o f o th e rs d a ily ; le a rn th e m o st d is ta n t fo re ig n la n g u a g e , a nd re a d its p o e try in th e o rig in a l; b u ild h is o w n house, o r a t le a s t a d o g - k e n n e l; c lim b h ills o r h ig h tre e s, o r jo in th e fir e - b rig a d e ; be a v e g e ta ria n a nd an out-and-out (im p o s ­ s ib le ) p a c ifis t. I f a m a n c a n n o t do th ese th in g s , h e m a y creep in a p e tty pace to d e a th , o r ju m p o u t o f th e w in d o w , as H e m in g w a y d id . A spiritually dead o r u n b o rn m a n m akes th e g re a te s t a r t a nd r e lig io n lo o k w h a t i t is a n y w a y , fo o lis h . W h e n w e re je c t fo lly , re g re t, sham e, hesitation, s in , egoism , v a n ity , s e n tim e n t, h y p o c ris y , a m b itio n , d ic h o ­ to m y ,w e re je c t o u r h u m a n ity . I t is to o b ig a p ric e to p a y fo r th e peace th a t p asse th understanding. ^ F re e ­ dom is b e s t/* s a id M rs . S tu b b s, lo o k in g a t th e p ic tu re o f h e r dead h u sb a n d . Y es, fre e d o m is b e st, b u t a tta c h ­ m e n t is b e tte r. T o d ie fo r lo v e , o r liv e w ith o u t i t — w h a t a ch o ice w e m u s t m a k e ! B u t th e re is n o o th e r alternative. Y o u say, “ H o w a b o u t liv in g w ith lo v e ? ” T h e w o r ld is n o t a rra n g e d lik e th a t. A s B y ro n sa id ,

A l l tra g e d ie s a re fin is h e d b y a d e a th ; A l l com edies a re ended b y a m a rria g e : T h e fu tu r e sta te s o f b o th a re le f t to fa ith .

A d ro w n in g m a n w i ll c lu tc h a t a Z en s tra w . T o be s a tis fie d w ith o n e s e lf, a lia s th e w o rld ,— is n o t th is P a ra d ise ? A n d i t is w h a t Z en o ffe rs to e v e ry m an . B u t is th e u n iv e rs e as s h a llo w a nd c a llo u s and s tu p id 200 Defects of Zen as I am? I f y o u t e ll m e I am e v e r so deep a nd co m ­ p a ssio n a te and omniscient, r e a lly , I can o n ly a n sw e r, “ R e a lly ? ” T h e o th e rn e ss o f G od, th e e v o lu tio n th e o ry , th e d o c trin e o f o rig in a l s in , a nd n ih ilis m a re m o re a t­ tr a c tiv e th a n th is re lig io u s megalomania, th is cosm ic bumptiousness. T h e Z en m a ste rs h a v e no d o u b ts a b o u t (th e interpretations o f) th e ir experience. A C h ris tia n does n o t d o u b t th e p e rfe c tio n o f C h ris t, o r th e good in te n tio n s o f th e D e ity . B u t w h e n C h ris t on th e cross d o u b ts th e lo v e o f G od, and w h e n H a k u in d o u b ts th e enlightenment o f G a n to , w h o scream ed so lo u d in h is death-agony,一th e n I h a v e n o d o u b t o f th e m . F in a lly , th e Z en a n sw e r to th e a bo ve c r itic a l querulousness is e x a c tly th e sam e as th a t o f th e C a th o lic C h u rc h . A ll th e contradictions, monstrosities, a b s u rd i­ tie s , im m oralities, and trivalities o f th e human-divine re la tio n a re “mysteries.” E v e ry c r itic is m w e m a ke o f Z en is y e t a n o th e r d ic h o to m y , w h ic h w e m u s t tra n sce n d . B u t th is is a self-contradiction in th e id e a o f Z en its e lf, fo r Z en is n o t m e re ly th e a b o litio n o f difference, b u t th e n e g a tio n o f sameness. T o p u t i t in a m o re p ra c tic a l w a y , Z e n liv e s lif e a nd in so d o in g e x p la in s it . B u t as h u m a n b eing s, n o t a n im a ls m e re ly , w e m u s t e x p la in life , and th is explanation m akes us liv e o u r lif e (a n d in so d o in g e x p la in it ) m o re t r u ly and d e e p ly . T hu s, th in k in g a b o u t Zen, criticising Z en, (Z e n its e lf, n o t m e re a c c re tio n s o r malformations) s h o w in g th e d efe cts o f Z en, d a m n in g Z en, th is is also Z en. Z en is n o t som e­ th in g th a t e x is ts , y e t; i t is a lw a y s a b o u t to be. T ru th is a c re a tio n , n o t a d is c o v e ry . S o m etim es, w h e n I lo o k a t m y dog G u p p y, a v e ry c le v e r dog, I th in k h o w u n ­ intelligent he lo o k s ,— fo r a h u m a n b e in g ! Z en is lik e G u p p y. EPILOGUE

W h e n w e th in k o v e r th e episodes in w h ic h th e Z en m a ste r and h is p u p ils p la y th e ir p a rts , w e can see th a t th e re a re v a rio u s ty p e s o f m in d s , in b o th te a c h e r and d is c ip le s , a nd th e re s o lu tio n o f th e d o u b ts a nd d iffic u l­ tie s f a ll in to s e v e ra l p a tte rn s . I t w o u ld be q u ite w ro n g and un-Zen-like fo r us to assum e, as is in v a r ia b ly done, th a t th e re is one “ tr u th ,” one enlightenment, one tr u e sta te o f m in d , “ one lig h t th a t enlighteneth e v e ry m a n th a t co m e th in to th e w o r ld ,” one Z en , one B u d d h a n a tu re ,

O ne fa r - o ff d iv in e e v e n t T o w h ic h th e w h o le c re a tio n m oves.

F re e d o m fro m oneness is m o re im p o rta n t, in th e lo n g ru n , th a n th e fre e d o m fro m d iv e r s ity w h ic h is th e a im o f a ll re lig io n a n d science. I t is h e re th a t p o e try a nd existentialism com e to o u r a id . E v e n a n im is m , w ith ­ o u t w h ic h no m a n can be saved, is in d a n g e r o f b eco m ­ in g anima mundi. T h u s each ane cdo te , each q u e s tio n , each a n s w e r m u s t b e r e - liv e d in its o w n w a y a n d in o u r o w n w a y . N o syste m , no symbolisation, n o tr ic k s , no p e rp e tu a l p a ra d o x o r d e s ire to a s to n is h a re to be a llo w e d . E v e ry b lo w has a d iffe r e n t m e a n in g , ju s t as e v e ry s h o w e r o f r a in is d iffe r e n t fr o m e v e ry o th e r. P ra is in g o r b la m in g , la u g h in g o r w e e p in g , each case has its o w n u n iq u e m e a n in g . “ B u t a t th e b a c k o f a ll o f th e m . . . ^ A s G o e th e sa id to E c k e rm a n n , “ D o n o t, I beg y o u , lo o k b e h in d phenomena.” T h e re a re , h o w e v e r, tw o w a y s in w h ic h w e can p re v e n t p e o p le fr o m g o in g b e h in d p h e no m e na , th a t is, 2 0 2 Epilogue s e p a ra tin g ( in lif e ) th e a b s tra c t fro m th e co n c re te and th u s s p o ilin g b o th . A c c o rd in g to Z en th e o ry , A is A, a nd A is n o t A; fu r th e r , A is A because i t is n o t A ( b u t s u re ly A is n o t A also because A is A?). T h u s th e tw o w a ys a re to sh ow th a t A is A, a nd th a t A is n o t A. A s tic k is w h a t y o u see i t to be, o f a c e rta in c o lo u r, shape, le n g th , w e ig h t, resilience, a nd so on. I t is also a conglomeration o f atom s o r e le c tric p a rtic le s . I t m a y also be G od h im s e lf, o r a n o n -s tic k , o r an o rn a m e n ta l appendage. T h e im p o rta n t th in g is to see th e u n ­ d iv id e d , unabstracted, m aterial-spiritual s tic k , a t one and th e sam e m o m e n t th e L o n g B o d y o f G od, and som e­ th in g fo r F itz g e ra ld to p o k e in to th e spokes o f th e w h e e l o f th e b ic y c le o f a b o y w h o is im p u d e n t e nough to rid e on th e p a v e m e n t. H o w can th is be done? B y a tte n d in g to each th in g w ith a ll o u r m in d and h e a rt and s o u l and senses. H o w e x h a u s tin g ! B u t th is is w h a t w e do w h e n w e eat, o r sneeze, o r f a ll in lo v e , o r sleep. A fte r a ll, w h a t w e a rie s us is d o in g w h a t w e d o n ’t w a n t to do. W h e n m y m o th e r to ld m e to tid y u p m y to y s , I r e a lly f e lt a d e a d ly exhaustion; I sa id I w as tire d , b u t she w o u ld re m a rk , s o m e w h a t a c id ly ，“ Y o u w e re n ’t tir e d u n til I to ld y o u to c le a r u p y o u r th in g s !，， W e h a ve to see and h e a r and s m e ll a nd ta s te and h a ve s e x u a l re la tio n s w ith A as A; A as n o t A; and as b o th to g e th e r, th a t is to say, alternately and s im u l­ ta n e o u s ly . T h is s o rt o f th in g can be illustrated b y th e sentences o f th e Zenrinkushu, w h ic h in d e e d consists m a in ly o f th e th re e k in d s . F o r th e fir s t, A is A, fro m th e Hekiganroku:

一 二 三 四 五 六 。 One, tw o , th re e , fo u r, fiv e , s ix .

雲冉冉水漫漫。 C lo u d s a re m o v in g , W a te rs are s w e llin g . Epilogue 203

A is n o t A:

兎馬有角牛羊無角。

R a b b its a nd horses h a v e h o rn s ; C ow s and sheep h a ve none.

陸地行舟虚空馳馬。

N a v ig a tin g a s h ip on d r y g ro u n d , R id in g a h o rse th ro u g h th e e m p ty a ir.

A is n o t A, and a t th e sam e tim e A is A:

細雨湿衣看不見， 閑花落地聴無声。

F in e r a in w e ts th e g a rm e n ts , b u t th o u g h w e gaze i t c a n n o t be seen; T h e flo w e rs q u ie tly f a ll to th e g ro u n d , b u t th o u g h w e lis te n , w e c a n n o t h e a r it .

T he fir s t is fa c t, th e second p a ra d o x , th e th ir d p o e try . T h is p o e try , w h ic h is also Z en , is th e p o e try o f W o rd s ­ w o rth and T h o re a u . I t is th e h ig h e s t p o s s ib le fo rm o f life , and som ehow m u s t be c a rrie d o v e r, as in S h a ke ­ speare, to th e w o r ld o f h u m a n b e in g s, w h o liv e i t in so fa r as th e y r e a lly liv e a t a ll. W h e th e r th is good lif e can be liv e d w ith o u t a n y re fe re n c e to n a tu re , w ith ­ o u t a deep a n d c o n s ta n t lo v e o f it , is a q u e s tio n . T h e C hinese Z en m o n k s , a nd th e Japanese a fte r th e m , u n lik e th e C h ris tia n , p re s e rv e d th e m se lve s fro m ego-centricity b y a c o n s ta n t re fe re n c e to n a tu ra l p he no m e na as ju s t if y ­ in g b o th th e ir (apparently) excessive m ateriality, and spirituality. W h a t is Zen? Z e n is th e unsymbolisation o f th e w o rld and a ll th e th in g s in it . O f course, th e Z en m a ste rs use m e ta p h o rs a nd s im ile s , th e y even use sym b o ls, b u t these a re n o t to b e ta k e n s e rio u s ly . O ne th in g does n o t m ean a n o th e r. A b o v e a ll, as w as sa id b e fo re , w e a re n o t to lo o k 204 Epilogue

b e h in d th in g s fo r th e ir m e a n in g . W h e n th e h a n d is ra is ­ ed, a ll th in g s a re ra is e d w ith it , b u t th e h a n d does n o t s ig n ify a ll th in g s . W h e n te a is d ru n k , th e u n iv e rs e is s w a llo w e d ; th e te a is th e u n iv e rs e ; i t does n o t sta n d fo r it. In this sense, animism is the sine qua non for Zen, but we must also say that a man is a tree walking. A h u m a n b e in g is as s u b je c t to cause a nd e ffe c t as th e lo w lie s t e xiste n ce . A sto n e is as fre e as a se ra ph . W hen i t ra in s , C h ris t’s b lo o d fa lls fro m th e firm a m e n t. Zen m eans th e fre e d o m to be b o u n d ; w e a re b o u n d b y a ll w ith in and w ith o u t us. W e c a n n o t escape fro m a th in g , as P la to tr ie d to , on th e w in g s o f an abstraction, a F o rm , a fu n c tio n . O ne th in g co n ta in s e v e ry th in g w ith in it , and n o th in g can be w ith d ra w n fro m i t w ith o u t in ­ ju r y to its e lf a nd to th e withdrawer. W h a t m a tte rs th e re fo re a b o u t a n y th in g is its a lln e ss. T h is is p erha ps a t th e b a c k o f th e m o d e rn d is lik e o f adjectives, e sp e cia l­ ly th e w o n d e rfu l a d je c tiv e s b e lo v e d o f K e a ts and T e n n yso n . A d je c tiv e s soon becom e a b s tra c t nouns (as in “ a lln e s s ” a bo ve) and th e w o rld is impoverished to c ra m th e h u m a n b ra in w ith non-existences, le a v in g meaningless m a tte r to be e x a m in e d fo r a m e a n in g . God is n o t lo v e . G od is n o t lo v in g . G od is som eone lo v in g so m e th in g , o r s o m e th in g lo v in g som eone. In th e b e ­ g in n in g w as n o w o rd , n e ith e r w as th e re , as F a u st asserts, a n y a ct. In th e b e g in n in g w as a sp ea ker, an a c to r. In th is m a tte r C hristianity and even M o h a m ­ m ed an ism is r ig h t, and B u d d h is m and Z en a re w ro n g . G od is a person, and H ea ven is a p la ce . C o n tra ry to th e B o o k o f Revelation, w ith o u t tim e n o th in g can e x is t, e s p e c ia lly th e tim e le ss, and “ E te r n ity is in lo v e w ith th e productions o f tim e .” INDEX

Buddhism, 53 absolute and relative, 24 Bukan, 10, 159 Adamson, Mrs., 12 Bunen, 114 Al-Ghazzalit 173 Bunyan, 166, 197 Alice in Wonderland, 7, 79 Byron, viii, 125, 199 Amida Sutrat 99 animals, 12, 96, 136, 189 animism, 36, 64, 97, 179, 197 cause and effect, 20, 21 Ankoku, 54 Changching, see Chokei Ankuo, see Ankoku Changsheng, see Chosei Arnold, M., 177 Changtzu, see Choshi Changyueh, see Zengetsu Bach, vi, 61, 69, 83, 179, 196, 199 Chaolun, see Joron ball-rolling, 42 Chiao, see Gaku Baicha-〇f 35 Chiashan, see Kassan Bashd Matsuo, 32 Chigan, 11 Baso, 18, 21, 79, 97, 160 Chigi, 116 beating, 40, 48, 89 Chihwei, see Ch'ii believing, 58 Chihyen, see Chigan bell, 106, 131 Chii, 11 Benka, 107 Chii, see Chigi Bind, 33 Chingching, see Kyoei Bhagavat, 61 Chingyuan, see Seigen Bhutathata, 104 Chiufeng, 107 Bird-nest Zenji, 11 Chokei, 57 Birds* Way, 95 ChSsei, 39, 44 Blake, 1, 32, 115, 120, 122, 158, Chosetsu, 70 161, 169, 173， 191, 192 Choshi, 27 blind turtle, 138 Christianity, v ， vi, 5, 7, 10， 20 Bokuju, 114 23, 27, 30, 31, 37，44，45, 49 Book of the Dead, 158 51, 52, 53, 68, 70, 73, 79, 83 Browning, 125, 164, 182 93, 96, 100, 101, 105, 106, 108 Buddha, 1, 11, 36, 41, 121, 130, 115, 116, 122, 126, 129, 133 142, 174 144, 155, 162, 173, 185, 187 Buddha, absolute, 67, 86, 115, 188, 196， 197， 198, 200 153 Chunshan, see Kinzan Buddha Hall, 63 Chuantsu, see Sensu Buddha nature, vi, 51, (Chapter) Chuangtse, 17, 170 190 Clare， 161， 186, 196 Buddha, what is, 30 comparison, 70 206 Index concrete and abstract, 131 Eno, 1, 15, 61, 67, 120 Confucianism, 10 Euripides, 190 Cow-herding Pictures, 19 existentialism, 41, Chapter XXII, Cowper, 162, 182 172 eye, 129 Eye of the Law, 58 Dainei, 25 Daiten, 25 danapati， 65 Fayen, see Hogen Dante, 142, 188 Fengkwan, see Bukan Daruma from West, 51, 78, 79, Fenyang, see Funyo 83, 111, 116, 119 Fields, W.C., 47 das Heilige, 115 filial piety, 101, 106 dead monks* clothes, 73 Five Commandments, 131 death, 64, 81, 84, 89, 95, 101, 103 Five Periods, 117 definite and indefinite, 39 Five Ranks, 3 Dengyo Daishi, 12 flowers of the eye, 59 Dharma Body, 143 Four Elements, 148 Dharmakaya, 48, 118 Four Mountains, 101 Diamond Sutra, 30, 68 Four Nirvana Virtues, 117 Dickens, 158 Four Statements, 93, 94 Ddgen, 50 Four Unchangeables, 27 Dogo, 81, 82, 83 Freud, 165 D5rin, 11 Fudaishi, 14 Ddshin, 9, 10 Funyo, 134 doubt, 184 Doyo, 109 dragon, 108, 109 Ganto, 31, 40, 200 Genkei, 14 Ean, 13 Genkaku, 16 Earthly Paradise, 162 Gensha, 42, 50, 96 Echo, 67, 97 gimlet, 114 Echu, 12 gnomic verses, 149 Eckhart, 63, 174, 195 gnosticism, 158 ego, 177 Goei, 92 Eho, 11 Goethe, 153, 201 Eimyo, 75, 77 Gozu, 116, 139 Gozu Zen, 2, 11 ff. Emerson, 117， 136, 174 Empson, 194 Gunin, see Konin Emptiness, 131 Enan, 112 hair-tip, 54 Engo, 75, 117 Haku, 94 Enjudo, see Nehando Hakuin, 151, 161, 182, 196 Enkan, 43 Hakurakuten, 11 enlightenment, vl, 37, 56, 58, 143 HakuyS, 67 Index 207

Hanfeitzu， 55 Isan, 83, 97, 179 Hannya Sutra, 9 Hanshan, 159 Japanese, 34, 185, 196 Hanyu, see Kanyu Jaspers, 175 Hardy, 199 Jenchien, see Ninken Haryo, 134 Jinshu, 15 Hasdda, 14 Jiz5y 59 Heidegger, 175, 181 Jizo, see Keichin Hekiganroku, 27, 33, 117, 134, 136, Johnson, Dr., 40, 130, 139 183, 202 Joron, 27, 66, 146 Hell, 178 Joshu, 10, 20, 41 Herbert, 119 Juliana, 47, 103 Hiju, 143 Junfuno, 90 Hitler, 181 Hofuku, 56, 59, 61 Kafka, 171, 175, 197 Hogen, 26, 53, 66 Kaingo, see Tozan Hogen Sect, 75 Kaku, 2, 105; 70, 71 Hokyozammai, 152 Kankei, 84 Honjaku, 104 Kannon, 65, 116, 122, 127 Hoshi Chord, 69 Kanyu, 25 Hotse, see Kataku Kanzan, see Hanshan Houn, 20 Kaoting, see Kotei Hsiangtien, see Zoden Kassan, 38, 86 Hsiangyen, see Kyogen Kataku, 17 Hsingshan, see Kyozan Kataku Zen, 2 Hsiushan, see Shuzan Keats, 197 Hsuanchueh, see Genkaku Kegon, 19 Hsuehfeng, see Seppo Kegon Sutrat 98 Huchiu, see Kokjru Keichin, 66 Huian, see Ean Keicho, 17 Huichao, see Echo Kemp5, 126 Huichung, see Echu Kierkegaard, 133, 163, 175, 176, Huifang, see Eh5 179, 184 Human, 112 killing, 121 human nature, Chapter XXIV, Kinzan, 31 190 Klee, vi humour, 179 knife, 20, 102 K5, 50 Igyo Sect, 19 Kokyu, 48 illness， 82, 105, 128, 129 KomyS, Empress, 58 immortality, 42, 97， 107 Konin (or Gunin), 11, 13, 112 Indra Heaven, 135 Korea, 76, 112, 140 insentient teaching, 97 K5s5, 32 interpenetration, 133 Kotei, 87 208 Index

Kuanchi， see Kankei monk’s age, 26 Kuang, see Ko morality, vii, 44, 45 Kueifeng, see Keiho Morality, 110 Kutta Sanzd, 16 mountains, 161 Kuzan, 55 movement, 38 Kyogen, 108 Mozart, 179, 182 Kyogen, 122 Muchou, see Bokuju Kydsei, 46， 60 Mugo, 182 Ky5zan 杏 山 ， 28 Mujodd, see Nehando Ky5zan 仰 山 ， 28 Mumonkan, 105, 151 Kyuho, 107 Myosho, see Meisho mysteries, 174 mysticism， Chapter XXII, 170 Lankavatara Sutra, 61 Laotse, 17, 100, 149, 186 Nangaku, 18, 126, 160 Lawrence, 35, 36, 44, 120, 179, Nangen, 101 190 Nansen, 97, 195 Lear, 22, 141 Nanyo, 2, 97 Letan, 30 Nanyueh, see Nangaku Lewis Carroll, 141 Nature, Chapter XXIV, 190 Liingshu， see Reiju Nehando, 85 lion, 36, 137 Nembutsu, 19, 75, 77 Lohan, (Kueichen)， see Rakan Nietzsche, 30, 58, 120, 175, 179, Lohan, (Shoujen), see Rakan, 182, 185 Shujin Ninken, 13 long-beaked birds, 133 Nirvana, 5, 174, 175 Loshan, see Razan Nirvana Hall, see Nehando love, 44， 75 Nirvana Sutrat 55, 117 Lungtan, see Hyutan Niutou, see Gozu Nyogen Senzaki, 87 Mahakasyapa， 110 Manjusri，28， 137 ox, 65, 100, 123, 144 Mansfield, 199 oryu School, 112 Marcel, 75 Over-soul, 172 mathematics, 119, 127, 128 Matsu, see Baso Paif see Haku Matt Dillon, 100 Paiyang, see Hakuy5 Meisho, 35 Paling, see Haryo Mencius, v Pangyun, see Houn Mingchao, see Meisho Paofu, see Hofuku Minwang, see Bino Pascal, 175 Mirror, 77 pecking, 60 mirror, 91 Penchi, see Honjaku monism, 195 peonies, 59 Index 209

Pienho, 55 Seven Schools, 112 Pilgrim^ Progress, 94 sex, viii Po Chui, 14, 146 Shakespeare, 21, 46, 73, 111, 133. 182, 195, 198 poetic nature, Chapter XXIV Shaoshan, see Shozan poetry, 133 Shelley, 38 post, 119, 133 Shifuku, 43 prophecy, 18 Shihshih, see Sekishitsu questions, 19，39, 40, 52, 137 Shingyd, 92 Shinjimmei, 72, 151 Shihshuang, see Sekiso Rakan, the, 24 Shiht§, 159 Rakan (Keichin), 53, 66 Shihtou, see Sekito Rakan (Shujin), 77 Shoddka, 17 Razan, 25, 33, 34, 35 Shouchou, see Tozan Reiju, 141 Shoyorokut 71 Reishu, 50 Reiun, 122 Shozan, 89, 135 religion, my, 183, 187 Shuzan, 71 Six Accomplishments, 164 Rhinoceros Fan, 43 Rinzai, 12 Six Ferries, 119 Six Roots, 113 R5an Zen, 2， 13 Smith, Sidney, 142 Rokutan, 30 rosary, 25 society, 180 Rossetti, Christina, 19 Sdgen, see Sokei Ryutan, 29 S5kei, 69, 120, 128 Sdmitsu, 94 S5t5 School, 3, 5 Saizen, 129 S5t5 Zen, 34 Samantabhadra (Fugen), 137 Sandokai, 20, Chapter XVin, 146 Southwell, Robert, 183 sarcasm, 130 S5zan, 104 sarira, 113 special teaching, 90, 122, 140 Scale of Perfection, 181 speed, 62 seamless tower, 145 Spengler, 198 Seccho, 151 Sramana, 123 Seigen， 18， 105 Sravaka, 40 Sekishitsu, 20， 28 staff, 116, 132, 133, 134 Sekiso, 33, 82, 86 Stevenson, 5，20, 32，45, 134 Sekit5, 20, 80, 146 St. Jerome, 10 Sengai, 183 stone woman, 157 Sengchao, 146 Sufi, 106 Sengmi, see Somitsu Suibi, 24 Sensu, 86 Sumeru, Mount, 121 Senzaki Nyogen, 87 Suzuki, Daisetz, 176, 195 SeppS, 32, 39, 55, 96 sword, 107, 134 210 Index

symbolism, 112 Trailokya， 34 symbols, 4, 56 Tree of Knowledge, 156 Tree of the World, 157 Taigen, 55 Trikaya Taining, see Dainei Trinity, 155, 179 Taiyuan, see Taigen Triple Synopsis, 95 Tanhsia, see Tanka Tsantungchi, see Sanddkai Tanka, 22 Ts'aoshan, see Sozan Taohsuan, see Dogen Tsuiwei, see Suibi Taoism, 23 Tsunpuna, see Junfuno Taolin, see Dorin Tungshan, see Tozan Taoying, see D5yo Twelve Nidana^, 38 Taowu, see D5go Tzuhuo, see Shifuku Tathagata, 68 Tatien, see Daiten Ummon，61, 114 ff. tea, vii Ummon Sect, 76 teacher of the Buddhas, 24, 110 Ungai, 83 teaching, 80, 141 Ungan, 81, 92, 98, 99 Tendai, 160 Ungo, 109 Tendai Sect, 116, 127 Upanishads, 1, 172 Tendai Tokucho, 75 tengo, 102 Vasubandhu, 132 Tenjiku, 25 Tenno, 29 Vinaya, 92 tenzo, 29 Weishan, see Isan Tennyson, 201 Wenyen, see Bunsen the Way, 88, 108, 127, 135, 185 Whitman, 57 Thompson, 177 wooden man, 157 Thoreau, 10, 18, 24, 26, 34, 121, words, 61, 93, 154 126, 134, 142, 156, 158, 161, Wordsworth, 36， 46， 73, 90， 97, 171, 175, 176, 177, 181 109, 116, 117, 139, 161, 177, Three Realms, 34 178, 182, 185 Three Worlds, 34 Wuhsieh, see Goei Tienchu, see Tenjiku Wukung, see Goku Tienhuang, see Tenno Wuyeh, see Mugo Tientai, 158 Tientai, Mount, 160 Yakusan, 79, 184 Tientai, Teshao, see Tendai To- Yangshan, see Kyozan kuch5 Yenkuan, see Enkan Tokusan, 6， 29, 43 Yentou, see GantS Tolstoy, 190 Yoka, 2 T6su (or T‘outsu)，43, 65 Yuankuei, see Genkei T5zan, 40, 43， 87, 92， 152 Yueshan, see Yakusan Tozan Shusho, 142 Index 211

Yuikyo Sutra, 144 Zen, Japanese, 38 Yuishikiront 132 Zen, playing at, 137 Yungcho, see Ungo Zen, teaching, 88, 90 Yunkai， see Ungai Zen, test of, 51 Yunyen, see Ungan Zen, what it is, 53， 118， 165， 181 Yunmen, see Ummon Zen and words, 44, 56 Zen clumsiness, 114 Zabutsu, 19 Zen not enough, 45 Zen Sect, 14 Zazen，19 Zengetsu, 135, 160 Zem m on Kdan Taisci, 114 Zenrinkushu, 202 Zen, aim of, 10, 19 Zen, American, 87 Zoden, 37 Zen, definition of, 35, 40, 110 Zuigan, 38 Zen, five types, 17 Zen, grumbling, 164 B y R. H. B ly th HAIKU Vols. I~ IV A HISTORY OF HAIKU Vols. I, II SENRYU JAPANESE LIFE AND CHARACTER IN SENRYU EDO SATIRICAL VERSE ANTHOLOGIES ORIENTAL HUMOUR ZEN IN ENGLISH LITERATURE AND ORIENTAL CLASSICS ZEN AND ZEN CLASSICS Vols. I, II，[II, IV, V A SURVEY OF ENGLISH LITERATURE HUMOUR IN ENGLISH LITERATURE —A Chronological Anthology— EASY POEMS I, II HOW TO READ ENGLISH POETRY DOROTHY WORDSWORTHS JOURNALS (With Introduction and footnotes) A WEEK ON THE CONCORD AND MERRIMACK RIVER (Shortened, with Introduction and Notes)

purports to be the THIS VOLUME History of Zen from Eno to Ummon, that is, of the Seigen branch of the double-forked tree of Zen. The history of Zen is the history of moments. It cannot be, like the history of ideas, or even the history of the freedom of thought, an account of devel­ opment, systematisation, criticism, modi­ fication, replacement, and so forth. Zen seems to become deeper sometimes, shal­ lower, broader, narrower sometimes, but there is no progress of the ordinary kind. It is a history only in the sense of being a list of names of great men in the attainment of greatness in words or deeds or manner of life. And from the Zen point of view, where the life-activity is both absolute and relative, silent and speaking, Godly and manly, placeless and placeful, timeless and timeful, in one, Tokusan, Seppo, Hogen and Ummon, for example, are far greater than Christ or Buddha or Confucius, not to speak of Plato, Dante, and Shakespeare.

5N 0-89346-205-5