.
p.333
As INTEREST IN Zen Buddhism has grown
increasingly in Europe and America, misunderstandings
of Zen have also developed. Most of the Westerners
who have become interested in or are followers of
Zen, after reading a few introductory books on the
subject, treat Zen as a pastime and as a topic of
casual conversation. Some of these newcomers may be
serious enough to study Zen, but they then reach
hasty conclusions from a knowledge of Zen acquired
only through the meager sources now available in
English and other European languages. Some may even
go so far as to practice meditation with high hopes
and expectations of reaching enlightenment or of
achieving an experience within a short time, through
a few hours of meditation. Some are quite happily
content to cherish the wonderful notion of "here and
now" and to dream in the easily-reached
"enlightenment" of "I am the God and I am an ass,"
and the like.
The fact is that most followers of Zen in the
West have now reached a stage in which they find
themselves spiritually emptied, intellectually
confused, and psychologically tired of the endless
Zen jargon after their association with it for some
time. These are very normal reactions that happen and
are to be expected in the course of Zen studies,
because most Zen students, even in the Orient, have
gone through the same experience at one time or
another. With the hope of clearing away some of these
misunderstandings, I now venture to present some
information about Zen hitherto overlooked, to raise a
few vital questions concerning Zen Buddhism which no
doubt have also occurred to the minds of many Zen
students, and to try to answer these questions
briefly and plainly.
Questionn 1. Is Zen altogether incomprehensible
and completely beyond the reach of
human understanding, as people have
begun to think, as
__________________________________
*Since the author of this paper is considering
current interpretations of Zen Buddhism, the name
"Zen" is retained although the philosophy originated
in China, where it was called "Ch'an," and for this
reason the basic literature referred to and the Zen
masters mentioned are all Chinese. Similar
considerations also explain the use of koan rather
than kung-an.--Ed.
p.334
a consequence of the influence of Dr.
D. T. Suzuki's repeated stress on this
point in his various works?
Question 2. What is "Zen enlightenment"? Is "Zen
enlightenment" identical with the
"perfect enlightenment" defined in
orthodox Buddhism? Is this Zen
enlightenment (wu 悟 ) a
once-and-for-all experience or is it
many experiences! If there are many
experiences, in what way do they differ
from one another in essence or in
degree of profundity?
Question 3. How does the teaching of Zen compare
with the teachings of the two main
schools of thought in Mahaayaana,
namely, the Yogaacaara and Maadhyamika?
Question 4. Beneath the surface of the seemingly
irrational and unorganized Zen stories
through which Zen has been approached
and understood is there a system, or
order, or category that one can follow
to make Zen more intelligible?
Let us examine the first question, namely, "Is
Zen unintelligible and completely beyond the reach of
human understanding?" This vital problem, upon which
the fate of Zen hinges as meaningful and valid
knowledge as well as as a concrete and intimate
spiritual truth, must be answered before any further
inquiry into Zen can take place.
Suzuki states in his article "A Reply To Ames":
To understand Zen one must abandon all he has
acquired by way of conceptual knowledge and strip off
every bit of knowledge that he has painfully
accumulated around him.(l)
Also, in Living by Zen he goes further in saying:
If we are to judge Zen from our common-sense view
of things, we shall find the ground sinking away
under our feet. Our so-called rationalistic way of
thinking has apparently no use in evaluating the
truth or untruth of Zen. It is altogether beyond the
ken of human understanding. All that we can therefore
state about Zen is that its uniqueness lies in its
irrationality or its passing beyond our logical
comprehension.(2)
Here the question will inevitably arise, "If Zen
is incomprehensible and irrational, as Suzuki has
repeatedly emphasized, how can it be possible at all
for any human being to understand Zen!" If one must
abandon all conceptual knowledge and strip off every
bit of intellection to understand Zen, as Suzuki has
suggested, all the enlightened Zen masters in the
past must have been completely unintelligent.
___________________________________
1. D. T. Suzuki, "A Reply to Ames," Philosophy East
and West, V, No. 4 (January, 1956), 349.
2. D. T. Suzuki, Living by Zen (Tokyo: Sanseido
Press, 1949), p. 20.
p.335
But historical facts show otherwise. These Zen
masters were wiser than the average people, not only
in their knowledge of Zen, but also on many other
subjects as well. Their brilliant achievements in
art, literature, and philosophy were indisputably of
the first order and were prominently marked in all
fields of Chinese culture. Then it is possible that
the mistake made by Suzuki in his way of presenting
Zen lies in his failure to distinguish between "to
understand" and "to realize." To understand a thing
does not mean to realize it. To understand Zen
through an intellectual approach should by no means
be confused with the direct realization of Zen truth.
Thus, what he ought to have said is not that in order
"to understand Zen," but, instead, that in order "to
realize Zen," "one must abandon all he has acquired
by way of conceptual knowledge" (in certain stages).
To understand the wonderfully cold, sweet, and
palatable taste of ice cream is not to have actually
experienced its taste. To understand the taste of ice
cream as cold, sweet, and palatable, but not bitter,
hot, or pungent is comparable to understanding Zen as
being direct rather than indirect, immediate rather
than abstract, and transcendent rather than
dualistic.
Any student of Buddhism knows that "to
understand" (了知 ) is very different from "to
realize" (證知 ). The former belongs to the domain of
"indirect measurement" (比量境界 ), while the latter
belongs to the domain of "direct discernment" (現量境
界 ). To confuse the ideas of these two categories is
almost comparable to a Catholic's saying to a solemn
priest of his church that Jesus Christ is merely "a
stick of dry dung." I am sure this man would be
struck and driven out of the church, but, of course,
not in the sense of Zen.
To understand Zen through an intellectual
approach is by no means "reprehensible." As a matter
of fact, it is the only way for the beginner to
approach Zen, for who can get into Zen without having
first some understanding or "conceptual knowledge"
about it! There is no exception to this for anyone.
Suzuki continues in his article "A Reply To
Ames":
When, for instance, Dewey talks of "here and
now," as quoted by Dr. Ames, they both neglect to
face the problem personally and see what it
experientially tells them. As I see it, they keep the
"here and now" away from their lives and look at it
from a conceptual distance. They somehow seem to be
afraid of jumping right to the point where space and
time have not yet differentiated themselves.(3)
This seems to be a very unfair statement. May we
ask Suzuki whether, when he studies, writes, and
lectures on Zen, he also has jumped to the
_________________________________________
3. Suzuki, "A Reply to Ames," p. 349.
p.336
point where space and time have not yet
differentiated themselves? Or, has even he been
studying Zen from a conceptual distance, too?
A complete denial of the value of intellection is
obviously unsound from the viewpoint of philosophy,
religion, and Zen---especially Zen. Why? If Zen is to
be considered, as it is, the essence of Buddhism
through which the ultimate truth is expressed, it
must be obstruction-free (一切無礙)and all-inclusive (
一切容攝 ), as Hua-yen 華嚴 philosophy has explicitly
explained, for, if the ultimate truth is ubiquitous
and all-pervading, it cannot be other than
all-inclusive and free from all obstructions. Thus,
even the dry stick of dung is found with the Buddha.
The mountain is a mountain and water is water; when I
am hungry I eat, and when sleepy I sleep; the birds
sing and the fish swim. What is wrong, then, with
intellection and conceptual knowledge? Are they not
also included in the great Tao Are they not also
performances in the marvelous play of Buddhahood? Are
not both intuition and intellection equally glorious
and indispensable in the great drama of Dharmadhatu
(the all-embracing totality)?
From the ultimate viewpoint of Zen, what excuse
can we have, then, to be in favor of one and detest
the other?
Actually, what Zen objects to is not intellection
or conceptual knowledge as such; it is, rather,
clinging (執 ) to intellection, or the
conceptualization within the clinging-pattern, that
Zen frowns upon.
Now let us see how Zen deals with human clinging.
Hsiang-yen 香嚴 (9th century) once asked his
disciples:
If a man climbs up a tree and he hangs from a
branch by his teeth, his limbs suspended in the air
without any support, and in the meantime a man comes
under the tree and asks him: "What is the meaning of
Bodhidharma's coming from the West?"
If the man does not answer, he then falls short
of replying, but if he utters any answer he will fall
down from the tree and lose his life. At this moment
what should he do?(4)
The meaning and purport of this interesting
kung-an (Japanese, Koan) 公案 can be interpreted in
two ways. First, this koan is a typical example of
the often-used technique applied by the Zen masters
to compel the disciple to retreat to the dead end of
the tracks which his habitual thinking and
associations have always followed, thus setting up a
condition in which the disciple has no way whatsoever
to allow his thoughts to function. Then, by pushing
the disciple one step beyond to the unknown, the
wisdom eye of the disciple may be opened. Second, if
we look upon this koan metaphoricaly, it obviously
reminds us of the forever-grasping or clinging na-
_________________________________________
4. See Vol. If of 高僧傳 ("Biographies of the
Outstanding Monks").
p.337
ture of the human mind. It is indeed true that we as
humans must have something to hold onto, or to cling
to all the time. It seems unthinkable to us that the
mind can function without having an object to think
about. Never for a single moment can we do without an
object to make mental or physical activity possible.
Furthermore, on most occasions we must have more
than one object to grasp or to cling to. If we lose
one we can always resort to another; a blind man
always resorts to his senses of hearing and touch. A
loser in love always resorts to drink or religion, or
something of the sort. But Zen masters always drive
us to the absolute dead-end state, where we have
nothing to grasp, cling to, or escape from. It is
right here, at this point of desperation, that we
must give up our habitual clinging for the absolute
Great Release (全放 ), and it is right here that we
must withdraw from the last ditch of our
thought-tracks and surrender with both hands naked,
with nothing for them to hold onto, and jump into the
unknown abyss of Buddhahood.
To confirm the statement that intellection itself
is not to be condemned, but, rather, that it is the
clinging that is objected to by Buddhist sages, I now
quote the famous saying of Dilopa, the Indian guru
who indirectly founded the Bka.h-rgyud-pa (Kagpupta)
school in Tibet, when he preached for his disciple
Naropa along the river Ganges on the teaching of
Mahaamudraa:
It is not the manifestations that have tied you
in Sa^msaara,
It is the clinging that has tied you down.
O, it is the clinging that made you--Naropa!(5)
It is very true that Zen emphasizes direct
experience and denounces mere intellection, which is
essentially abstract and indirect. Zen masters were
certainly unwilling to encourage any type of
speculation on Zen if they could help it, nor did
they like to speak too plainly(6) about what they
understood, for if they did so people would simply
form another notion about Zen which would inevitibly
lead back into the old vicious circle of intellection
__________________________________
5. "This is a well-known saying of Mahaamudraa,
widely used in Tibet. The original wording of the
sentence in Tibetan is:
"Sna^n wa ma byi^n shen Pa byi^n
She^n Pa khyod kyis Naropa."
The documentation is not available at present. See
W. Y. Evans-Wentz, Tibetan Book of the Great
Liberation (London: Oxford University Press, 1954).
6. "Pu-shuo-p'o" 不說破 ("not to speak too plainly")
was rightly translated by Hu Shih in his article
"Ch'an (Zen) Buddhism in China," Philosophy East
and West, III, No. 1 (April, 1953), 3-24. Though
his understanding and interpretation of Ch'an were
purely from the historian's viewpoint, which may
not be considered sound from the philosophical
viewpoint, his translation of this term
"pu-shuo-p'o" was correct. Suzuki gave an
elaborate explanation of "pu-shuo-p'o, " which
covered almost three pages in his article "A Reply
to Hu Shih," Philosophy East and West, III, No. 1
(April, 1953), 25-46. Here I am afraid Suzuki
missed the point. He stressed only the
inexpressible or inscrutable aspect of Zen truth.
p.338
and philosophy. Thus, to use any method or trick
which would bring the disciple directly to the point
and never to speak too plainly about Zen became the
unique "tradition of Zen" cherished with pride by all
Zen followers. However, one should not think that Zen
masters are always obscure and strange in their
remarks. Contrary to present interpretations, they
spoke very plainly and sincerely on most occasions.
Just to read the complete discourse of any one Zen
master will verify this statement. Even the heroes of
the extremists like Ma-tsu 馬祖, T-shan 德山, and
Lin-chi 臨濟 were plain and understandable on many
occasions. Their instructions would make us think
that some good-hearted minister was preaching with
simple words and great sincerity to his audience.
This is because Zen is most practical. It cares for
nothing but to bring the individual directly to
enlightenment, and, since individuals vary greatly in
their capacities and aptitudes, Zen masters must use
different methods and teachings for different
individuals in different circumstances. Therefore,
Zen styles and Zen expressions vary greatly from the
most enigmatic and irrational koans to the plainest
and most understandable instructions. The ironic fact
is that, though Zen claims itself to be a "special
transmission outside the scriptures with no
dependence upon words and letters," Zen monks wrote
many more books than those of any other Buddhist sect
in China.
Concluding the discussion of the first question,
my answer is this:
1. Zen is by no means altogether beyond the
reach of human understanding.
2. It is through the "understanding of Zen" that
the "realization of Zen" comes.
3. According to the ultimate view of Zen, it is
utterly wrong to exclude or degrade any
dharma. This, of course, includes
intellection and conceptual knowledge, for
they are also embraced by and are identical
with the supreme Buddhahood.(7)
4. The abandonment of conceptual knowledge is
only temporary; it is merely a practical
means, not a strived-for aim.
5. Intellection is rejected by Zen masters only
for certain types of individuals at certain
stages.
____________________________________________
7. There are three different schools of thought in
Buddhism concerning the relationship between the
kle`sas (passions or desires) and bodhi,
sa^msaara, and nirvaa.na. Theravaada stresses the
necessity of destroying the passions in order to
attain nirvaa.na. General Mahaayaana advocates the
transformation of the passions into bodhi. The
third school emphasizes the dentity of the
sentient being and the Buddha, the passions and
bodhi, and sa^msaara and nirvaa.na, since from the
ultimate viewpoint there is no difference between
the pure and the impure. This last view is held by
both Zen and Tantra.
p.339
II
Since "enlightenment" (悟 wu) is the "Alpha and
Omega" of Zen Buddhism, as Suzuki has pointed out,(8)
let us now approach this crucial subject and discuss
the second problem under consideration: What is
"enlightenment," or, more accurately speaking, what
is "wu" as understood by Zen? Is it one experience or
many experiences?
The plain answer is given in the following
tentative definition of wu: Wu is the direct
experience of beholding, unfolding, or realizing the
mindessence in its fullness. In terms of essential
characteristics, the wu experience is illuminating
yet void, serene yet dynamic, transcending yet
immanent, free yet all-embracing. Wu experiences are
one and also many. They are one because they are
identical in essence; they are many because they are
different in profundity, clearness, and proficiency.
This gives a brief idea of the meaning and nature of
wu.
Now, before examining the wu experience further,
let us first examine the very meaning of the Chinese
word 悟 "wu." "Wu" means to awake to the fact, or,
loosely, to understand. The usage of this word as
shown in the Zen tradition in denoting the inner
experiences of the awakening to the praj~naa-truth
(the truth realized through transcendental wisdom) is
clearly different from the meaning of
ch$ng-t$ng-cheh 正等覺 (samyaksambodhi), which is
the final and perfect enlightenment of Buddhahood. It
is very interesting to learn that wu is also called
satori (sambodhi) in Japan.(9) This is a deviation from
the original Ch'an tradition. The Ch'an Buddhists in
China seldom used the term "sambodhi" to denote their
Ch'an experience, even "bodhi, " translated as
"cheh" in Chinese, was not used often. Though the
meaning of "cheh" and "wu" are very close, a slight
difference still exists between the two. Wu describes
better the awakening aspect in its immediate sense,
while cheh denotes permanent and complete
enlightenment. For instance, Ta-cheh 大覺 is used
only in reference to the Buddha and is seldom applied
even to the celebrated Ch'an masters, except in a
complimentary sense in honorary titles. There are
many other reasons which verify the wu experiences as
being different from the final, perfect, and complete
enlightenment of Buddhahood as generally understood.
The frequent use of wu instead of cheh by the Ch'an
Buddhists illustrates this point.
Since wu is in the main an experience of
awakening to praj~naa-truth, it
________________________________
8. D. T. Suzuki, Zen Buddhism, "Anchor Books" (New
York: Doubleday & Company, 1956), p. 84.
9. Ibid., p. 83.
p.340
is not necessarily the person who attains this wu
experience who can fully master, deepen, and mature
it. A great deal of work is needed to cultivate this
vast and bottomless praj~naa-mind to make it blossom
fully. In order to reach perfection, it also takes a
long time to remove the dualistic, selfish, and
deeply rooted habitual thoughts arising from
passions. This is very clearly shown in many Zen
stories, as well as unmistakably stated in this Zen
proverb, for example, "The truth should be understood
through sudden enlightenment, but the fact [the
complete realization) must be cultivated step by
step."(10)
Thus, we know that Zen enlightenment, wu, varies
greatly from the shallow glimpse of the mind-essence
of the beginners to full Buddhahood as realized by
the Buddha and a few advanced Zen masters. However,
these experiences are different only in degree of
profundity, not in essence or in basic principle. To
understand Zen Buddhism, therefore, one must study
the Oxherding Pictures (牧牛圖 ), the principle of
the Three Gates (三關 ), the Five Positions of the
King and the Minister (五位君臣 ), and the Four
Distinguishments (四料簡 )of Lin-chi, and others,
with their commentaries. Without some understanding
of these theses, one can hardly expect to understand
Zen even in a superficial way.
In order to give the Western reader a more
genuine picture of how Zen enlightenment actually
takes place, I have translated a short autobiography
of T'ieh-shan 鐵山, in which he recounts his personal
experience of wu during his long striving for
enlightenment. This story is first-hand informa-
tion, which is better than any explanation or
description given by eloquent and learned but
inexperienced scholars.
According to T'ieh-shan's account:
I knew Buddhism from the time I was thirteen. At
the age of eighteen I joined the priesthood... then
one day I read a thesis brought by a monk from
Hsehyen 雪巖, called "Advice on Meditation" (坐禪箴
). After reading it, I became aware that I had not
yet reached the stage mentioned in this book.
Therefore, I went to Hseh-yen and followed his
instruction in meditating on the sole word wu. On the
fourth night sweat exuded all over my body, I felt
very comfortable and light. I remained in the
meditation hall concentrating on my meditation
without talking to anyone. After that, I saw
Miao-kao-fng 妙高峰, and was instructed to meditate
on the word wu without a moment of interruption, day
or night. When I got up before dawn the hua-t'ou 話頭
(the gist of the sentence) immediately presented
itself before me. As soon as I felt a little sleepy,
I left the seat and descended to the ground. The
hua-t'ou never departed from me at any time, even
while walking, preparing my bed and food, picking up
my spoon or laying down the chopsticks.
____________________________________
10. This is;i well-known Zen proverb and is used
widely by Zen students in China. The original
documentation is not available at present.
p.341
It was with me all the time in all my activities, day
and night. If one can fuse his mind into one whole,
continuous piece, he cannot help but attain
enlightenment. Following this advice, I was fully
convinced of my actual arrival at such a state. On
the 20th of March, Master Yen addressed the
congregation:
"My dear brothers, it is of no use to feel sleepy
while sitting for a long time on your meditation
seat. If you are sleepy, you should leave the seat
and walk on the ground, use cold water to wash your
face and mouth and freshen your eyes. Then you may go
back to your seat again, sitting with your spine
erect, freshening your mind as if you were standing
on a precipice of ten thousand measures, and take up
solely your hua-t'ou (the gist of the sentence).(11)
If you keep on working like this for seven days, you
will certainly come to the realization. It was such
an effort as this that I made forty years ago."
I practiced according to this instruction for
some time and soon I felt unusual improvement. By
practicing in this way the next day I felt that I
could not close my eyes even if I wanted to. The
third day I felt as if my body were floating in the
air. The fourth day I became completely unconscious
of anything going on in this world. That same night I
leaned upon a baluster and stood there for some time.
My mind was so serene that it was as if it were in a
state of unconsciousness. I collected my hua-~t'ou
and lost it not, and then I proceeded back to my
seat. When I was just about to sit down, I suddenly
experienced a sensation that my whole body, from the
top of my head to the bottom of my feet, was split.
The feeling was something like having one's skull
crushed by somebody; it was also like the sensation
of being lifted up from the bottom of a
ten-thousand-foot well to the high sky. I then told
Master Yen about this [indescribable ecstasy] and the
non-attaching joy that I had just experienced.
But Master Yen said to me: "No, this is not it.
You should keep working on your meditation."
Upon my request, Master Yen gave me the words of
Dharma (法語 ), the last two lines of which read like
this:
"To propagate and glorify the 'upgoing' affair (
向上事 )of Buddhas and Patriarchs
You still need a good hammer-strike
On the back of your head."
I kept on saying to myself: "Why do I need a
hammering on the back of my head?"
I was not at all convinced of this. However, it
seemed that there was still some slight doubt in my
mind, something of which I was not sure I meditated
thus a long time every day for almost half a year.
One day when I was boiling some herbs for a headache
I recalled a Koan about Naja 哪吒, in which a
question was put
________________________________
11. "Hua-t'ou" ("the gist of the sentence"). Suzuki
uses "koan exercise" instead of "hua-t'ou
exercise" at most places in his writings. See
Suzuki, Zen Buddhism, p. 139. Although both
"Roan" and "hua-t'ou" may be used to denote the
"inquiry exercise of Zen," the latter is original
and more accurate. "Koan" implies the entire Zen
story, including all the events, plus the main
question at issue, and therefore it is a general
term, while "hua-t'ou" is very specific.
"Hua-t'ou" denotes only the question, not the
whole story, and in most cases only the "gist,"
"highlight, " or "tip," so to speak, of the
question is implied.
p.342
to him by Red Nose (赤鼻 ): "If you return the bones
of your body to your father and its flesh to your
mother, where would 'you' be then?"
I remember that once I couldn't answer this
question when I was asked by the host monk, but now,
suddenly my doubt was broken. Later, I went to
Mng-shan 蒙山. The Master Meng-shan asked me: "When
and where can one consider his Zen work is
completed?"
I could not answer this question. Master
Mng-shan urged me to stress my effort on meditation
(dhyaana) to wash away worldly habitual thoughts.
Each time I entered his room and gave my answer to
his interrogation, he always said that I still had
not got to it. One day I meditated from afternoon to
the next morning, using the power of dhyaana to
sustain and press forward, until I directly reached
[the stage of] profound subtlety. Arising from
dhyaana I went to the Master and told him my
experience. The Master asked me: "What is your
original face?"
When I was just about to answer, the Master drove
me out and closed his door. From that time on I
gained a subtle improvement every day. Later I
realized that the whole difficulty was because i had
not stayed long enough with Master Hsehyen to work
on the subtle and fine part of the task. But how
fortunate I was to meet a really good Zen master.
Only through him was I able to reach such a stage.
Not until then had I realized that if one exerts
himself in an incessant and compelling manner he will
gain some realization from time to time, and strip
off his ignorance at each step of the way. Master
Mng-shan said to me: "This is like stripping a
pearl. The more you strip it, the brighter, clearer,
and purer it becomes. One stripping of this kind is
superior to a whole incarnation's work of another."
Nevertheless, every time I tried to answer my
Master's question I was always told that something
was still lacking in me.
One day in meditation, the word "lacking" came to
my mind, and suddenly I felt my body and mind open
wide from the core of my marrow and bone, through and
through. [The feeling was] like old piled-up snow
suddenly melting away [under the bright] sun that had
emerged after many dark and cloudy days. I could not
help but laugh out heartily. I jumped down abruptly
from my seat and caught Master Mng-shan's arm with
my hand and said to him: "Tell me, tell me! What do I
lack! What do I lack?"
The Master slapped my face three times, and I
prostrated myself before him three times. The Master
said: "Oh, T'ieh-shan, it has taken you several years
to get here!"(12)
III
The third question: How does the teaching of Zen
compare with the two main schools of Mahaayaana,
namely, Yogaacaara and Maadhyamika?
From the viewpoint of Mahaayaana Buddhism, there
is no essential difference between Zen and
conventional Mahaayaana Buddhism, except the unique
techniques applied and the unconventional expressions
used by Zen
________________________________
12. This story is selected from Chu-hung 袾宏
(1535-1616), "Exhortation to the Advance Through
Ch'an Gates" 禪關策進.
p.343
in illustrating the praj~naa-truth of the
mind-essence. Zen agrees with the basic philosophy of
both Yogaacaara and Maadhyamika. Zen embraces the
essence of both these teachings. Now first let us see
in what way Zen resembles Yogaacaara.
Yogaacaara and Zen
The Mind-only (vij~naptimaatra 唯識) philosophy
of Yogaacaara is summarized by Hsan-chuang 玄奘 in
his translation-composition of Ch'ngwei-shih lun 成
唯識論 as follows: "No dharmas [of sa^msaara or of
nirvaa.na] are apart from consciousness. Some of them
can be ascribed to the selfforms of consciousness,
some to the counterparts of consciousness, some to
the objects transformed by consciousness, some to the
divisions and domains of consciousness, and some to
the essence of consciousness."(13)
Among these five cardinal points of the Mind-only
philosophy, the first and the last are most
important. Also, it is through these two that we can
clearly see the parallels between Zen and Yogaacaara.
Now, let us examine what Yogaacaara has to say about
the self-form or self-nature of consciousness.
According to Yogaacaara each of the eight
consciousnesses (14) has three functional
divisions:(15) first, the "objective or seen portion
(相分 lak.sa.na-bhaaga),
_______________________
13. Hsan-chuang 玄奘 (596-664). 成唯識論 Ch'en Wei
Shih Lun (Vij~napti-maatrataa-siddhi`saastra) ,
chap. 7.
14. The eight consciousnesses are: eye-consciousness,
ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness,
tongueconsciousness, body-consciousness, mind,
ego-consciousness and storehouse- consciousness.
15. According to Sthiramati 安慧, there are only
three portions of each consciousness. In contrast
to Dharmapaala's 護法 theory of four portions,
Sthiramati's is much clearer and simpler. The
fourportion theory as propounded by Dharmapaala
seems to be redundant and it has been criticized
by a number of Yogaacaara scholars in recent
years. Some explanation on the four portions is
given in Junjiro Takakusu, The Essentials of
Buddhist philosophy (Honolulu: University of
Hawaii,1947), p. 88. It is also recommended that
the reader see p. 89, in which the three
object-domains (三境 ) , which are in close
relation with the four-portions theory, are
explained. However, Takakusu's explanation of the
object-domain of mere shadow (獨影境 )is too
concise and thus misleading: "The object-domain
of mere shadow or illusion. The shadow-image
appears simply from one's own imagination and has
no real existence. Of course, it has no original
substance as a ghost which does not exist at all.
Only the sixth, sense-center, functions on it and
imagines it to be." This passage gives the
impression that the sixth consciousness--the most
active and versatile among the eight
consciousnesses--which people generally call
"mind," is a faculty which senses (緣 )solely the
delusive images. This is not true. The Pa shih
Kuei-ch Sung 八識規矩頌 by Hsan-Chuang explains
the sixth consciousness in relation to the-three
object-domains in the following sentence: "It
includes the three natures, three measurements
and also three object domains (三性三量通三境 ).
This sentence describes the sixth
consciousness as being a consciousness which
embraces all the three natures (三性 )--good,
had, and neutral; the three measurements (三量
)--the direct measurement ( 現量 ), the indirect
measurement (比量 ) , and the erroneous
measurement (非量 ); the three object-domains (三
境 )--the object-domain of nature (性境 ), the
object-domain of mere shadow (獨影 ) , the
object-domain with the original substance ( 帶質
境 ). Thus, we know that the sixth consciousness
functions not merely on the delusive images which
characteristically belong to the erroneous
measurement but also function on the
object-domain of nature which belongs to the
direct measurement, and also functions on the
object with the original substance, in some cases.
p.344
equivalent to what the epistemologists call
sense-datum; second, the subjective or seeing portion
(見分 dar`sana-bhaaga), the cognitive faculty which
many philosophers erroneously take as the mind per
se; and, third, the self-witnessing portion (自證分
saak.saatkaari-bhaaga) . This self-witnessing or
self-awareness portion is considered by Yogaacaara as
pure consciousness itself while the other two
portions are merely false imaginings created by
consciousness through its habitual patterns. This
emphasis on the selfawareness portion is of great
importance, and of far-reaching effect, especially
from the practical viewpoint. This emphasis on
self-awareness is also found in Zen. Zen Master
Shn-hui 神會 (668-770) said: "The one word
'knowledge' (chih 知 ) is the gateway to all
mysteries." (16) What he meant here by chih was deep
self-awareness or praj~naa-intuition, as Dr. Suzuki
has rightly pointed out in his "Reply To Hu
Shih."(17) This chih, or self-awareness, is
intrinsically non-dualistic. It can be aware of
itself and can be aware as such, without any outer
object as an indispensable "reliance" (所依 )or
stimulus whereby thoughts within the dualistic
pattern are brought into play. Thus, the retaining of
self-awareness will automatically stop the
functioning of the first portion (the objective
known) as well as the second portion (the subjective
knowing). The cultivation of self-awareness or pure
consciousness will thus eventually annihilate all
dualistic thoughts and bring one to Buddhahood. Here
is the core of Yogaacaara, and here we find the
reason both Yogaacaara and Zen claim the importance
of seeing one's mind-essence by warding off the
dualistic pattern of thought. Both Zen and Yogaacaara
claim that no dharmas are apart from the mind. They
are merely manifestations and images of mind. The
only difference that one may find between Zen and
Yogaacaara is the way of approaching the same truth
and the way of expressing it. For instance,
Yogaacaara explains the states of mind through an
analytical approach in a pedantic and wearying
manner. With great patience, it goes into all details
and classifications of every state of mind, whereas
Zen expresses them in a more lively and dramatic way.
In contrast to Yogaacaara's detailed descriptions as
to how the aalaya (storehouse) consciousness conjures
up the outer world, projects its own images, holds
the seeds-of-names-and-forms,
seeds-of-habitualthoughts, etc., Zen explains the
same truths in a very simple and illuminating way.
This art of elucidating the profound and obscure
truth through simple and lively words is found in
many Zen stories. The story of Hui-n$ng's
________________________________________
16. "For this sentence see Hu Shih, "Ch'an (Zen)
Buddhism in China," Philosophy East and West,
III, No. 1 (April, 1953), 3-24. Hu Shih rendered
this sentence as "The one word 'knowledge' is the
gateway to all mysteries."
17. Suzuki, "A Reply to Hu Shih," pp. 31-32.
p.345
慧能 (638-713) remark on the moving flag and wind is
a typical example: "Two monks were arguing whether it
was the wind or the flag that was moving. For a long
time they could not settle the problem. Then Huinng
arose from the audience and said: "It is neither the
wind, nor the flag, it is the mind, that moves."(18)
With the simplest language and in the easiest manner
Zen-explains the profoundest truth, while Yogaacaara
uses many words to explain its ideas.
Another sharp contrast between Yogaacaara and Zen
is that the former takes the gradual approach toward
enlightenment, while the latter goes straight ahead
to grasp it directly. The gradual approach of
Yogaacaara is typified by its meditation process
called "Observation on the Mind-only Doctrine in Five
Steps," as systematized by K'uei-chi 窺基 (632-682).
Among the five steps, the third is important and
crucial. It is called "reducing the offshoots to the
main consciousness." In this stage the student is
taught to strip off the first and second portions and
come to self-awareness. The fourth step is called
"curtailing the inferior and unfolding the superior
consciousness." In this stage the student is taught
to absorb himself in pure consciousness and
disassociate himself from the functional activities
of consciousness. The fifth stage is called
"discarding the forms and realizing the nature of
consciousness," "forms" meaning the "shade" or the
"clinging" of pure consciousness. That is to say, not
until all the inborn and acquired clingings and also
the clingings to ego and to the dharmas are
completely annihilated can one fully realize the
nature of the ultimate reality. These progressive
stages of unfolding pure consciousness remind us of
the famous Zen Master T-shan's remarks: "If you do
not understand, I'11 strike you with thirty blows
and, if you do understand, I'11 also strike you with
thirty blows."(19)
It is easy to understand the justification of
being struck if one does not understand the truth.
But why does one deserve a blow after his
enlightenment? Explaining this in a superficial way,
we may say that it was the master's intention to test
the disciple, but, when we think carefully about it
do we not sense that the blow given after one's
enlightenment is aimed at bringing the disciple up to
a stage of further enlightenment by striking him out
of clinging to the shallow experience that he
hitherto had attained? Zen masters seldom explain
their intention plainly if they can help it. They
love to act rather than explain, to demonstrate
rather than expound. This is where and only where Zen
sharply differs from Yogaacaara.
_____________________________
18. 六祖壇經, ("Discourses of the Six Patriarchs") (
台灣佛學書局 ), p. 18.
19. Te-shan goto egen 五燈會記, Bk. VII: Dianikon
Zokuzokyo 大日本續藏編三十一套, p. 116.
p.346
Now let us proceed to the comparison of
Maadhyamika, the Middle Way, and Zen.
Maadhyamika and Zen
The outstanding and unique contribution of
Buddhism to philosophy is its vast and profound
teaching of voidness (`suunyataa). Glancing over the
history of philosophy, both East and West, it is
difficult to find a school of thought that can equal
Buddhism on this subject. It seems that one of the
main interests that have inspired the philosophers
and theologians of the West to proceed in their
searching after truth is this: What is existence and
how do things exist? We may even go so far as to say
that this is the springboard of Western philosophies.
In contrast to this "emphasis on the study of
existence, " Buddhism has put all its stress on the
"study of voidness, or non-existence." Present-day
Western thinkers may not yet have seen clearly the
importance and significance of `suunyataa, for it was
not until very recently that the philosophy of
`suunyataa was introduced to the West, except in
fragments, through limited translations of Buddhist
texts. While the whole field of `suunyataa studies
remains to be fully explored by Western thinkers, the
philosophy of voidness has been of incalculable
influence on Buddhist as well as non-Buddhist
thinkers throughout Asia, as history has shown.
When `suunyataa was practiced and speculated upon
in the old days of Buddhist history, the theory of
non-ego (anaatman) and the thought of the "Nirvaa.na
without residue" (nirupaadhi`se.sanirvaa.na^m 無餘湟
槃 )were formulated, and many Arhats were also
produced. When `suunyataa was examined by the
analytical-minded Yogaacaara scholars, the Mind-only
philosophy with its theory of the twofold-voidness,
together with the elaborate system of Buddhist
psychology, was founded. When it conjoined with
Tantra, the Diamond Vehicle (Vajrayaana) emerged.
When it was thoroughly absorbed into the minds of the
faithful and candid Tibetans, it overwhelmed them and
finally superseded the ritualistic Tibetan Tantrism,
giving birth to the widely practiced teaching called
"the mind-essence practice" (Tibetan, sems ngo) of
the Rnyin Ma and Bka.h-rgyud schools. When `suuyataa
is not treated as a game of pure speculation but as
the only means by which all serious problems of
Buddhism can be solved, one cannot help but proceed
to search out the practical, instead of the purely
theoretical, teachings of `suunyataa that may be
useful in helping one to reach enlightenment. This
impulse was so strong and so earnest that, once
conjoined with the practical Chinese mind, it could
not help but produce Ch'an (Zen). Therefore, without
a thorough understanding of the philosophy of
voidness it is impossible to understand any form of
Buddhism, especially Zen.
p.347
Since, in this article, it is not possible to
discuss all facets of Zen Buddhism in relation to
praj~naapaaramitaa, which is exemplarily propounded
by Maadhyamika, only a few Zen stories and some
common sayings of praj~naapaaramitaa will be reviewed
here to illustrate the similarities between the two.
Maadhyamika (Middle Way) is also called the
Doctrine of Voidness (空宗 ). The central philosophy
of Maadhyamika is the study of voidness, but what is
voidness? Generally speaking, it is difficult to
define or to describe voidness in its direct and
unmistakable sense. The human mind is completely and
helplessly bound up with the belief in existence.
Forms of human thought, good or bad, shallow or
profound, synthetic or analytical, etc., are all
produced by the "clinging to the dharmas," which
makes voidness inaccessible to the mind. As a
consequence, the use of any word or idea to define,
or even describe, voidness is sure to fail. We can
best describe it only through implication. For
instance, void means containing no-thing, etc. No
matter how hard we try, voidness can be described or
defined only through the annulment of existence,
although this is obviously an indirect and useless
approach. The definition brought out through this
kind of approach can never be considered, of course,
as positive and satisfactory in meaning. The very
fact of the impossibility of defining voidness in a
positive way reflects the truth and the practical
value of the eight negations of Maadhyamika.(20)
Although voidness can be reached through both
negation and assertion, as many Zen stories show, the
best avenue of approach to it for most people is
through negation. Negation is no doubt the best
antidote for the inherited overbearing tendency
toward the ego- and dharma-clingings of the mind.
Thus, the eight negations propounded in the
Maadhyamika `Saastra should not be treated as a
negative philosophy as such. Instead, they should be
regarded as instructions with practical value for
praj~naa-meditation. It is through absolute negation
that the ultimate truth is expressed. This is called
"to illustrate through negating," which is a favorite
method widely used by Zen masters. We may go so far
as to say that the majority of Zen Koans were based
on this approach.
The ingenious Zen masters used many colorful
phrases and expressions to illustrate the
praj~naa-truth. T'ou-t'o 透脫 is a very good example.
T'ou 透脫 means to penetrate or break through, t'o 脫
means to release or to strip off. To break through
the walls of clinging and to strip off dualistic
conceptions is the only way to obtain enlightenment.
The purpose of preaching the eight negations,
eighteen voidnesses, etc., in `saastras and suutras
was for nothing more than to make us break through
and strip off. But note how easy and
__________________________________
20. The eight negations: no arising, no extinction,
no eternity, no cessation, no oneness, no
manifoldness, no coming, no going.
p.348
how simple the Zen expression is: with only two words
the bulky literature of praj~naapaaramitaa and
Maadhyamika is explained. In short, the teaching of
Maadhyamika is in essence identical with that of Zen.
To repeat, the only difference is that Zen expresses
the teaching in a more practical and lively manner.
The blows and the unexpected answers of Zen that
knock one out offer a more direct and more practical
method than the eight negations and eighteen
voidness, etc., ever could offer as a means through
which one is carried right to the heart of
praj~naa-truth.
The Sixth Patriarch asked Huai-jang 懷讓 (?-775):
"Where do you come from?"
Huai-jang said: " I come from Mount Su." The
Patriarch said: "What is it and how does it come?"
Huai-jang said: "Anything I could say would miss the
point."(21)
In contrast to the eight negations, is this
remark not more explicit and direct in illustrating
the undefinable and incomprehensible nature of
praj~naa?
A monk asked Chao-chou 趙洲 (778-896) "All things
are reducible to one---to what is the one reducible?"
Does this question not typically reflect the
profound aspect of the "Thoroughness of the void,"
which transcends all monotheistic principles and
characterizes Buddhism as a "super" religion? But
Chao-chou said: "When I was staying at Chin-chou, I
made a robe of cloth weighing seven chin."(22) HOW
improper and illogical this answer seemed to be, in
reply to such an important question, and how stupid
it was to say one would make a nine-pound robe to
wear. This answer, which makes no sense whatsoever to
an intellectual, sounds very stupid even to an
ordinary man. But, if we think about it carefully,
does not this down-to-earth seemingly stupid
statement demonstrate vividly the limitations of
human intellection which is solidly molded in
derivative and sequential patterns? Does it not also
suggest that we should go beyond conceptualization to
get the unanswerable question answered? Chao-chou was
indeed a remarkable master, but sometimes he was too
profound to be understood. Even Huang-po 黃蘗
(?-850) failed to catch him up,(23) and Hsueh-feng 雪
峰 (822-308) called him the ancient Buddha and bowed
to him at a distance when he was asked to comment on
him.(24)
On the other hand, Zen stories and sayings will
not shock or puzzle
____________________________
21. 景德傳燈錄 Keitoku dento roku ("Transmission of
the Lamp"), Bk. V: Taisho Daizokyo no. 2076; vol.
LI, p. 240.
22. "Chin" is a Chinese unit of weight equal to about
11/3 pound avoirdupois.
23. 見賊過後張弓案 (See the Koan of "Drawing the Bow
After the Thief Had Left"), National Journal of
Interpretation of Zen, p. 13 v. 16.
24. 見古 (水 + 閒 )寒泉案 (See the Koan of "The Cold
Fountain and the Ancient Stream") , National
Journal of Interpretation of Zen, p. 13 v. 16.
p.349
Maadhyamika scholars at all. They merely find the Zen
approach interesting, with some worthy points as well
as some bad ones. They perceive, too, that there is a
great danger of falling into nonsensical talk without
inner understanding of the subject. This is what has
actually happened in Zen, and Zen masters called this
type of worthless imitation "Zen from the mouth." To
Maadhyamika scholars, the Zen claim of the Buddha's
being the dry stick of dung is not at all
sacrilegious or surprising, for they know what the
Praj~naa-paaramitaa-h.rdaya-suutra says so very
clearly on the point: "The void nature of all dharmas
is not arising or extinction, not pure or impure, not
increasing or decreasing--." If one understands that
reality is neither pure nor impure, he finds the
Buddha in heaven as well as in the dung.(25)
In concluding this review of Zen and Maadhyamika,
I must say that through studying Zen one will
understand Maadhyamika better, and through studying
Maadhyamika one will understand Zen better.
IV
Now let us come to the fourth question:
Beneath the surface of the seemingly irrational
and unorganized Zen stories is there a system, or
order, or category that we can follow to make Zen
more intelligible?
The answer is yes. As a matter of fact there are
many different systems laid down by Zen masters to
classify the Zen Koans. Among them Lin-chi's "Four
Distinguishments(26) (四料簡 )may be considered as
the best and clearest one through which many
enigmatic koans can be deciphered. This "Four
Distinguishments" was given by Lin-chi himself, who
once said to disciples:
Sometimes I snatch away the person and save, or
do not snatch away, the object.
Sometimes I snatch away the object but save the
person.
Sometimes I snatch away both the object and the
person.
Sometimes I snatch away neither the person nor
the object.(27)
___________________________________
25. see: 般若心經 (Praj~naa-paaramitaa-h.rdaya)
Chinese text: 是諸法空想不生不滅不垢不淨不增不滅
26. Szu liao chien 四料簡 iS expediently translated
here as the "Four Distinguishments." it may also
be rendered as the "Four Distinguishments and
Select;ons."
27. 鎮州臨濟慧照禪師語錄 ("Discourses of Zen Master
Lin-chi Hui-chao of Chn-chou"), 國譯禪學大成第五
卷 ("National Journal of interpretation of Zen"),
V. 5.
p.350
To make these understandable to the reader, I
shall first quote Lin-chi's own abstruse explanation,
then Tsu-yan's 祖源 (17th century) explanation, and
in conclusion my own interpretation. But first let me
give some explanation of this peculiar expression,
the "Four Distinguishments": "To snatch away the
person" means to reject, refuse, repudiate,
disapprove, or "steal away" the person who comes to
the Zen master for instructions; "save the object"
(ching 境 )means not to disapprove the remark made by
the person. The Chinese word "ching" as used by the
Chinese Buddhists has many meanings, such as the
scene, domain, sphere, object, understanding, etc.
Zen Buddhists seemed to have a special usage for this
word; for instance, ching-pu-shng 境不生 means a
certain specific experience of Zen which has not yet
arisen in the disciple. "Ching" therefore means the
specific experience or understanding within one's
mind, which, of course, can be referentially treated
as an "object" visualized or comprehended by the
mind. Since this word "ching" is very difficult to
translate, for the sake of convenience I now
translate it as "object." However, the reader must
not treat the word "object" literally.
Generally speaking, "to snatch away the person
but save the object" means to disapprove or reject
the questioner but not to reject his remark. In a
similar manner the other three methods can be
understood.
These "Four Distinguishments" are four methods
used by Zen masters in dealing with Zen disciples on
four different levels of Zen understanding.
Lin-chi's own explanation of the Four
Distinguishments is found in his "Discourse" (語錄 ):
(28)
The disciple asked Lin-chi, "What does it mean to
snatch away the person but save the object?"
Lin-chi answered: "When the bright sun arises
Embroideries cover the great
earth.
The hanging hairs of the
infant
Are as white as the snow."
The disciple asked again: "What does it mean to
snatch away the object but save the person?"
Lin-chi answered: "The order of the king was
sanctioned in the whole
nation, While the general is
isolated from the smoke and
dust Far away beyond the
border land."
"What does it mean to snatch away both the person
and the object?"
Lin-chi answered: "While no message is
forthcoming from Ping and
Fng One stays alone in the
whole area."
"What, then, does it mean to snatch away neither
the person nor the object?"
Lin-chi answered: "While the emperor ascends his
royal seat,
_____________________________________
28. Ibid.
p.351
Over the field are heard
The songs the old folks
sing."
These poems are very enigmatic, especially the
second and third. Though the first and fourth are
rather clear in their implications, the gist of the
fourfold method obviously was not clearly explained
for people to understand.
To make it more intelligible I now quote the
explanations given by Tsuyan in his influential
book: "Mind--the Source of All Dharma" (萬法歸心錄 ).
(29)
The disciple asked Tsu-yan: "What does it mean
to snatch away the person but not snatch away (save)
the object"
Tsu-yan answered, "In the domain of
self-awareness, if one can empty his mind, what
obstruction can there be from an outer object?'
[Therefore,] when a Zen master teaches a disciple of
low capacity, he should snatch away the person but
not the object."
The disciple asked, "What does it mean to snatch
away the object but not the person?"
"In the domain of self-awareness, [one] dwells
not on the outer objects but reflects with his mind
alone. [Therefore,] the Zen master should snatch away
the object but not snatch away the person when the
disciple of average capacity comes."
"What does it mean to snatch away both the person
and the object?"
Tsu-yan answered: "In the domain of
self-awareness, both the mind and the object are
empty, whence, then, comes the delusion? Therefore,
the Zen master should snatch away both the person and
the object when the well-endowed disciple comes."
"What, then, does it mean to snatch away neither
the person nor the object?"
Tsu-yan said, "In the domain of self-awareness,
mind naturally remains as mind and objects as
objects. The Zen master therefore takes away neither
the object nor the person when the highly gifted
person comes?"
These explanations may still not be very
satisfactory or clear enough to illustrate the riddle
of the Four Distinguishments. Nevertheless, they give
some clue for unraveling the hidden meaning of the
subject in certain respects. Now I shall try to use
some Zen stories to explain, with my own
interpretations, these methods used on four different
levels.
A chief monk asked Lin-chi, "Are not the
teachings of the three Vehicles and the twelve
divisions given for illustrating Buddha-nature?"(30)
Lin-chi answered, "The weeds still haven't been
cleared out."
This reply may be ascribed to the first method,
namely, to snatch away the person but save the
object. What the monk had said was absolutely
correct, for there was nothing whatsoever wrong in
his remark, but from the practical Zen viewpoint one
would say, "What is the use if one cannot have his
Buddha-nature actually unfolded?"
____________________________________
29. See: 萬法歸心錄 ("Mind--the Source of All
Dharma") (建康局出版 1946 年十月廿日 ), pp. 145,
146.
30. See: 鎮州臨濟慧照禪師, p. 3.
p.352
As one Zen proverb says: "Much talk about food
will never still one's hunger."(31) Or again, "If the
teaching of the Buddha cannot actually bring one to
direct enlightenment, what difference remains between
the worthless weeds and the bulky Suutras?" In this
incident, obviously, there was nothing wrong with the
remark made by the monk. The fault lay in his lack of
a direct experience in praj~naa-truth. This was why
Lin-chi said: "The weeds have not been cleared out."
The monk then fought back and questioned Lin-chi,
"But, in any circumstance can the Buddha cheat us at
all!" Lin-chi said to him, "Where is the Buddha!"
To a person who has no direct experience of the
innate Buddhahood within himself, Buddha is merely a
name, a notion or shadow which does not mean anything
at all. This is why Lin-chi said mockingly to him,
"Where is the Buddha?"
A different Koan may even be clearer in
illustrating this first method. One day when Lin-chi
saw a monk approaching him, he raised the duster. The
monk then bowed before him, but Lin-chi beat him.
After a while another monk came. Lin-chi again raised
his duster. When the monk paid no respect to him
Lin-chi beat him also. The paying of respect or the
not paying of respect was obviously not the real
reason for the beating. The fact was that as soon as
Lin-chi saw these two monks he immediately knew what
kind of men they were. No matter whether they bowed
or not, he beat them both. This shows clearly that
what Lin-chi cared for was not the outward action but
the inner realization of the person.(32)
Now let us see how the second method, "to snatch
away the object but save the person," is applied.
Once Lin-chi in a sermon said, "Upon the red
flesh lump there is a True Man of No Position. He
constantly goes in and comes out from the gate of
your face. Those who have not seen him should try to
see him."
A monk then came forward and asked Lin-chi, "What
is this True Man of No Position?"
Lin-chi immediately descended from his seat and
held the arm of the monk and said, "Say it! Say it!"
[snatch away the person].
When the monk was just about to answer, Lin-chi
released his arm, let him go, and said to him
disdainfully, "What kind of dry dung is this True Man
of No Position!"(33)
This is a typical example of "snatching away the
object," i.e., the topic in question or the notion
one has in mind, The koan shows how the Zen
___________________________________________
31. Documentation not available.
32. See: 鎮州臨濟慧照禪師語錄, p. 20.
33. Ibid., pp. 3-4.
p.353
master sets the trap with a fancy idea and a strange
name and waits for the clinging-bound and the
constantly pursuing disciple to fall into it. This
kind of surprising shock will not only knock all
notions from one's sequential thought but also bring
one to the state of the beyond.
The third method, "to snatch away both the person
and object, is a little deeper than the first two.
The following koan is a good example of it.
One day Lin-chi was invited by his patron to give
a sermon. When he ascended to his seat and was just
about to preach, Ma-ku 麻谷 came forward and asked
him, "The All-Merciful One (Avalokite`svara) has a
thousand arms and a thousand eyes. Which eye is the
main eye?"
Lin-chi answered him, "The All-Merciful One has
one thousand eyes. Which eye is the main eye? Say it!
Say it!"
Ma-ku then forcibly dragged Lin-chi down from the
seat and sat upon the seat himself. Lin-chi then
walked very close to Ma-ku and said to him [very
humbly], "I do not understand, sir ."
Ma-ku was just about to say something, when
Lin-chi immediately dragged him down from the seat
and again sat on the seat himself. Ma-ku then walked
out of the hall. After Ma-ku walked out of the hall
Lin-chi also descended from the seat, and no sermon
was given.(34)
This koan shows how both Lin-chi and Ma-ku tried
to "snatch away" each other, and how both the
questioner and the answerer had tried to strip off
from each other every bit of objective understanding
and subjective attitude. The highlight of this koan
is found in the last part of the story: after Lin-chi
had ascended the seat for the second time, Ma-ku went
out of the hall. When Lin-chi saw Ma-ku walk out of
the hall, he also descended from the seat, and no
sermon was given. If Ma-ku had not walked out, or if
Lin-chi had not descended from his seat after Ma-ku's
departure but had remained on his seat as the victor,
each of them would then have fallen into the trap of
the other and would have been caught in the
snare-of-clingings. Since it would require too many
words to explain this Koan in full detail, I have
given here just a clue to its meaning and will let
the reader find the explanation for himself.
Now let us come to the fourth method, or the
fourth domain of Zen understanding, "to snatch away
neither the person nor the object."
Generally speaking, the koans of this category
are somewhat easier to understand. The legendary
first Zen koan is a typical example of this method.
When Buddha `Saakyamu.ni held the flower in his hand
and smiled but uttered not one word before the
congregation, no one in the assembly understood what
the Buddha meant. But Mahaaka`syapa smiled quietly at
_____________________________________
34. Ibid., p. 3.
p.354
the Buddha as if he fully understood the purport of
the Enlightened One. The Buddha then said, "I have
the treasure of the unmistakable teachings, the
wonderful mind of nirvaa.na, the true form without
form, the marvelous and subtle dharma, beyond all
words, the teaching to be given and transmitted
outside of the [regular Buddhist] doctrines. I have
now handed it to Mahaaka`syapa."(35)
Also, the well-known Zen saying, "Mountain is
mountain, water is water; when I am hungry I eat,
when I feel sleepy I sleep; I do not search for the
Buddha, or look for dharma, yet I always render my
obeisance to the Buddha."
Another interesting story may also be helpful in
understanding the koans which illustrate the fourth
domain of Zen understanding.
One day Lin-chi was standing in front of the
hall. When he saw Huang-po (Lin-chi's Master) coming,
he closed his eyes. Huang-po pretended that he was
frightened (by Lin-chi) and returned to his room.
Then Lin-chi came to his Master's room, bowed down
before him, and thanked him.(36)
My interpretation of the story is this: When
Lin-chi saw his Master coming, he purposely closed
his eyes, completely disregarding and rejecting his
revered Master--this would snatch away both the
person and object. However, Huang-po was even more
profound than Lin-chi. He mockingly pretended to be
frightened by this blow. Lin-chi's intention was
brought out into the open, and his blow thus missed
its mark. Surpassed by his Master in profundity and
with his understanding sharpened, Lin-chi went to his
Master's room to thank him and to pay his respects.
If my interpretation of this koan is correct, this
story shows the sword-clashing between a sage of the
third domain (Lin-chi) and a sage of the fourth
domain (Huang-po). The result was the complete defeat
of Lin-chi--his eloquence of closing his eyes was
utterly overrun by his Master's taunting gesture.
What choice did Lin-chi have but to bow down at the
feet of his Master and thank him heartily?
With the foregoing explanations of Lin-chi's Four
Distinguishments, the reader may now have a general
idea of how Zen masters express themselves and
instruct their disciples at different levels. A full
discussion of the Four Distinguishments must await
another time.
Besides the Four Distinguishments of Lin-chi,
Tung-shan's 洞山 (807-863) doctrine of Wu Wei Chn
Ch'$ng 五位君臣 (37) is surely the most important
subject of Zen Buddhism that one must study before he
can hope
___________________________________
35. See: 景德傳燈錄第一卷 Transmission of The Lamp,
Book I, p. 4.
36. See: 鎮州臨濟慧照禪師語錄, p. 26.
37. See: "Five Positions of the King and the
Minister," p. 11.
p.355
to understand Zen koans in an intelligible and
systematic way. Wu Wei Chn Ch'ng is no doubt one of
the most intellectual products of Zen, a crowning
achievement of Tung-shan and Ts'ao-shan (曹山 ).
V
Zen is the most difficult, puzzling, and
complicated subject in the field of Buddhist study.
To understand Zen, even on an intellectual level, one
must be well-versed in the philosophy of Mahaayaana
Buddhism and also acquainted with the unique
traditions of Ch'an (Zen). In addition to these
requirements, one must also have some direct Zen
experience through actual practice, because, after
all, the essence of Zen consists in one's own direct
personal experience, not in philosophical
speculation. All these factors make Zen extremely
difficult to study and to explain. Owing to the
complexity and profundity of Zen Buddhism, no one is
able to portray it in a flawless manner. To use the
Chinese expression, Zen is something round and
rolling, slippery and slick (圓滾滑溜 )--ungraspable
and indescribable. A perfect picture of Zen is
therefore impossible to paint. When one side is
brightly lighted, the other side is often obscured;
when one aspect is stressed, the other aspect is
often distorted. Therefore, a balanced way of
introducing Zen becomes all the more desirable and
necessary.
By introducing Zen Buddhism in a balanced way, I
mean to say that all important facets of Zen should
be presented in an even and impartial manner. Both
the negative and positive aspects should be
introduced--its evasiveness as well as its immediacy,
its passiveness as well as its dynamics, its
intelligibility as well as its unintelligibility,
etc.--all should be elaborated. To understand Zen one
must study it from all its different angles. This is
to say, one must study it historically,
psychologically, and philosophically, as well as from
its literary, yogic, and spiritual frames of
reference. It is only through studying it from all
these different angles and levels that one may reach
a correct and impartial understanding of Zen. I have
tried to comment on some of the important facets of
Zen which have been hitherto neglected or distorted,
or never introduced, so as to present the balanced
explanation which is necessary for real
understanding.