Zen Picking & Choosing: Koans and Zen Masters

Zen Picking & Choosing: Koans, Expressions, and Zen Masters

Being expressed from the nondual perspective, Zen expressions on objectivity and subjectivity naturally presuppose their being heard and understood nondually. The subjects and objects of Zen expression are not “signifiers” or “symbols” that “represent” independent entities, but interdependent beings and forms, the actual vehicles (that both “contain” and “convey”) of metaphorical modes of experience, each fully dependent on and inclusive of all. The emphasis here is their identity in and as “experience.” The experience of Zen practice-enlightenment is the experience of the self alone together with the self – the great matter of life-and-death. This experience is actualized by (therefore inclusive of) both “illumining” and “darkening.” Experience itself (thus Zen practice-enlightenment) is thusness as it is – it manifests without prior design. Even if it was possible, pure objectivity or subjectivity would be exactly the same; as either term would be meaningless, picking and choosing one over the other would be meaningless. Fortunately, the Zen perspective is void of pure objective or subjective (much less objectless) experiences – authentic practice-enlightenment is free from the vain “picking and choosing” of abstract speculation. This point is firmly established in the early mythology of Zen by the third Chinese ancestor, Shosan:

The Great Way is not difficult; it simply avoids picking and choosing;

When love and hate are both absent; everything dwells in perfect clarity.
~Shinjinmei (Trust in the Heart-Mind), first verse

The significance and implications of this passage (and the whole poem for that matter) is brought to light, refined, and elaborated by innumerable expressions throughout the Zen literature. One of the clearest, and most direct expressions on this is found as case 2 in the classic Zen work, Hekiganroku. The expression therein is centered on a dialogue between the revered Zen master, Joshu, and a monk from the assembly where he taught. Here is the koan that comprises the “main case” of the expression:

Joshu, Addressing his assembly, Joshu said, "The Great Way is not difficult; it simply avoids picking and choosing. But as soon as words are uttered, there is “picking and choosing” and there is “clarity.” This old monk (Joshu himself) does not dwell in clarity. Do you monks treasure this clarity or not?” (Do you understand, agree, or go along with [me, my meaning, and/or clarity itself] or not?)

A monk stepped forward and said, “If you do not dwell in clarity, then what do you treasure?” (If it is not “clarity” where do you dwell?)

Joshu said, "I do not know, either.”

The monk said, "If you do not know, Teacher, how can you say that you do not dwell in clarity?"

Joshu said, "It is enough to have asked the question. Now bow and withdraw."

~Hekiganroku (Blue Cliff Record), case 2, main case

All thoughts, words, and deeds are necessarily “selections” – an idea appears as an idea through selecting or “picking and choosing” (illumining) particular dharmas from among the myriad, and ignoring (darkening) the rest. Regardless of the method or the one that employs it, thinking, speaking, or acting necessitates “selection,” illuming and darkening. Thus, “as soon as words are spoken” other words are “unspoken” – thus even though the great Zen master is compelled to “pick and choose” and not “dwell” in an enlightened condition (clarity), realization of the nonduality of “picking and choosing” and “clarity” delivers one into the liberated condition in which “picking and choosing” is itself “clarity” and “clarity” is itself “picking and choosing.” For the true self, being actualized by and as the object chosen and the subject choosing comprises the whole of actualized experience. If the self that makes the selection is the self from which the selection is made, then it is the self that is made by (fashioned by) the selection. Therefore, as the self is experience itself (the actualization of subject/object), then the experience of “clarity” (a subject/object) is the self (as clarity itself) and “picking and choosing” (a subject/object) is the self (as picking and choosing itself) the subject/object of the thusness of either is neither voided not altered in the slightest – clarity, picking and choosing, and every other dharma is a subject with an object, and an object with a subject – the two are distinct and co-extensive, not merged or independent.

The ordinary (unawakened) being, like the objective scientist, subjective artist, and abstract speculator naturally selects the “good,” “important,” “beautiful,” “significant,” or “true” from the welter of raw experience. Most will acknowledge the inevitability of leaving some of their experience untreated, many will agree that some of their experience goes “unexperienced” (i.e. the will admit not noticing every tree, thought, movement, etc.), and the more astute may confess to having fashioned much of their experience (i.e. thoughts, feelings, understanding, etc.) from preconceptions and after-images of actual experience, but without the vision afforded by the Dharma-eye none admit, much less realize it is not them that fashions experience, but experience that fashions them.

Driving ourselves to practice and experience the myriad dharmas is delusion. When the myriad dharmas actively practice and experience ourselves, that is the state of realization.

Shobogenzo, Genjokoan, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Just as the lucid dreamer realizes the he is “dreamed” the Zen practitioner realizes she is “fashioned.” And as the dreamer knows his “dream-self” is dreamed by his “dreaming-self” and never the two shall meet; the Zen practitioner sees that her (individual/universal) “self” is fashioned by her (universal/individual) “self” and never the two shall meet – and, never shall the two not meet. For if “fashioning” is continuous, experience is continuous. One ’s self is never “objective” to subjectivity, nor “subject” to objectivity – both are coessential qualities of the self – whatever sense of “objectivity” is experienced is (ever already) a subjective perspective of the self. As soon as “matters of fact,” “spiritual authorities,” “scientific truths,” “authentic certifications,” “natural laws,” or “logical proofs” are viewed or treated as abstract realities we can be sure that objectivity and subjectivity have strayed from the Way and fallen into dualism.

Peace, Ted

Joshu's Stone Bridge & Dogen's Objectless Zazen

Joshu's Stone Bridge, Dogen, and the Only Buddha There is...

...

According to Zen tradition, when he was 40 years old the great Master Joshu awakened to enlightenment under Master Nansen. After awakening he stayed and trained with Nansen for another 20 years, then he went out and visited all the great teachers in China, refining his realization for another 20 years, and finally he settled down to teach at the age of 80. Living until the age of 120, Joshu taught for 40 years – the amazing clarity and intimacy of the recorded teachings of Joshu suggest there may be some truth to the legend. In any case, as a teacher he was renowned throughout China and monks travelled from all over to meet and train with him. Once, late in his life, perhaps after 70 years of honing his knowledge and skill, a monk came to meet him:

The monk said, “I have long heard of the great stone bridge of Joshu, but now I am here and I don’t see the stone bridge, I see only a single-log bridge.”

Joshu said, “You don’t see the stone bridge; you see only a single-log bridge.”

The monk said, “What is the great stone bridge of Joshu?”

Joshu said, “Horses cross, donkeys cross.”

To clarify, “Joshu” was the name of the area where Master Joshu settled down to teach, which was where he took his name from, as was customary for Zen masters. The “stone bridge of Joshu” was an actual bridge in the area that was renowned throughout China as an engineering marvel. The monk in this case used the bridge as a (somewhat) polite way to speak about the Master himself, and Joshu adeptly responded in kind. “I have long heard of the great Joshu,” the monk indicates, “but I don’t see any marvel here, I see only a frail old spindly bridge.” Joshu’s response is characteristically mellow, even grandmotherly, “You don’t see the stone bridge; you see only a single-log bridge.” The monk can’t help but show his colors under Joshu’s illumination; the monk asks, “What is the stone bridge?” You are just an ordinary old man, aren’t you; am I missing something? “Horses cross, donkeys cross.” Yes, the ordinary one-log bridge you see easily accommodates horses, donkeys, oxen, elephants, and finally all beings in the ten directions.

As existence is individual experience, the reality of the experienced bridge is greater, truer, and more existent for Joshu than the reality of the experienced bridge of the monk. Seeing is fashioning; actualizing (making actual); the clearer one sees, the greater the actualization.

When someone with the perspective of the secular world encounters a mountain, and when someone with the perspective of one amongst mountains meets this mountain, how their minds think of this mountain or how their eyes see this mountain will be vastly different.
Shobogenzo, Sansuikyo, Hubert Nearman

The clear seeing (prajna) of Zen practice is wholehearted intentional seeing; it is actively utilizing the entire experiential capacity of the whole body-mind (konshin). It is simply not possible to actualize this clear seeing when one is restraining or attempting to eradicate particular aspects of experience; simply letting go, letting things be as they are, having no-goals, detaching from thoughts, etc. are exactly the opposite of authentic Zen practice. To understand Dogen’s teaching of “objectless” meditation as meaning cutting off, or turning away from “objects” (e.g. koans, the breath, scriptures, etc.) in the practice of sole-sitting (shikantaza) is to misunderstand Dogen’s teaching. “Objectless meditation” does not mean detaching, or turning away from objects, it means utilizing the Dharma-Eye; “clear seeing” (prajna) is seeing that there are no “objects” in the whole universe; the breath, koans, scriptures, and even bridges do not exist objectively. Those that make a concept of “objectless meditation” and set out to realize it are, to use a Zen phrase, trying to go south while facing north.

The whole universe is utterly without objective molecules: here and now there is no second person at all.
Shobogenzo, Bussho, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

The bridge lets horses and donkeys cross because Joshu, clearly seeing with his whole body-mind, actualizes the whole body-mind of the bridge. While such are the innate capacities of all human beings, this kind of fullness of life experience does not just happen automatically, and it certainly cannot be actualized by detaching or letting go. Joshu wholeheartedly and continuously cultivated, developed, and refined his human capacities for decades.

The single-log bridge is not a reality separate from the great stone bridge; it is simply that reality as experienced by the masses of unawakened beings living single-log lives. Little children can see the great stone bridge, they can and do travel to the far reaches of the universe in cardboard boxes, but they are unable to see the single-log bridge until they mature into a world of community. In this transition the stone-bridge becomes all but lost to sight; for most the process of maturity is arrested here. In Zen the next step in the process is called the “great death” – like all the great mythologies, Zen recognizes the truth that achieving the fullness of humanity requires us to experience a second birth. The great death is the experience of seeing through the ego that Dogen calls “casting off the body-mind of ‘self and other than self.’” Undergoing the experience of the great death can be a daunting, even terrifying experience; thus Zen records are full of references to “the few” that are “aware of this,” “have this skill,” etc. For “the many” prefer the easier path of obedience, submission and acceptance; forfeiting the liberation of full actualization for a false sense of security.

Failing to clearly see (prajna) that the “gaps” between dharmas are joints that unify as well as distinguish, the world is perceived as dissected rather than diverse. Repelled by the hideousness common to all jumbled heaps of indefinite parts, people are naturally drawn to the stability of normalcy that comes with full maturity. Attracted by promises of ease and immediate gratification, many are led to abandon personal verification for the pseudo-security of obedience to an ideology. Convinced of their own inferior authority, some devote themselves to the views asserted by the masses. Averaging out and blurring distinctions the mob arrives at a “common” world of manageable abstract categories and generalizations. Assuring one another that they too perceive only the single-log bridge, they rest convinced of their own normalcy.

Dogen, however, reminds us that being typical, common, or average does not equate with being “normal” or “ordinary.” The single-log bridge in the absence of the great stone bridge is the abstract, impersonal, generalized experience of mundane mediocrity.

You cannot really perceive what a mountain is by means of the standards used by those who wander in ignorance.
Shobogenzo, Sansuikyo, Hubert Nearman

Joshu’s eye does not add anything to the bridge; it perceives more of it. The great stone-bridge and the beings crossing over are not an intellectual, emotional, or instinctual experience, but the experience of one with the mind of an old grandmother wherein all such divisions have long been abandoned. Joshu, unlike the child, can see the single-log bridge too; thus, he can communicate with “others,” guiding them to maturity.

In Zen, the perception and experience of Buddhas is the measure of the “ordinary mind,” the normality of being human. The monk not seeing the great stone bridge is no more normal than blindness or confusion; it is a lack of normality or a condition of abnormality. The Zen axiom that “the ordinary mind is Buddha” does not mean the “Buddha is the ordinary mind,” as is often wrongly interpreted, it means “the ordinary mind is Buddha.” The single-log bridge is the great stone-bridge, but the great stone-bridge is not the single log bridge.

Practical experience tells us that some aspects of our experience are subject to our control while others are not. We feel we can choose to sit, stand, walk, or lie down, but not that we can choose to breathe, digest our food, circulate our blood, or grow new skin cells. In fact, the real “us,” that is, our “true self” does actually manage all of this and more; but that is not the point we want to get at here; Dogen’s criticism is targeted at presuppositions that the natural, unintentional processes of experience are inclusive of our thoughts, speech, and actions. The idolaters of emptiness and the “Senika heresy” of naturalism, suppose that hearing, for instance, occurs unconsciously as random, uncontrollable sounds assail the mind through the ear. But for Dogen hearing is actualized by the mind conducting itself through the ear to the “objects” of sound; in Zen Master Linchi terms, “Here in this lump of red flesh (the body-mind) there is a true person of no rank directing itself in and out of the gates of your face (the sense organs).”

For those that divide appearance from reality or form from emptiness, the mind (true person) is uniform, passive, pure consciousness, or inactive essential nature; hearing (as well as seeing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and thinking) are all automatic, involuntary processes – life “just happens.” Of those promoting views about “having no goals and simply letting things be as they are” or that “just sitting in pure awareness is itself enlightenment” Dogen says:

As to the phrase ‘when the right moment arrives’, folks in both the past and the present have frequently held the view that this means one simply waits for some future time when Buddha Nature will manifest before one’s eyes. They believe that while doing their training and practice in this way, the time will arrive when Buddha Nature will spontaneously manifest before their eyes. They say that until that time comes, It will not manifest even by visiting one’s Master and inquiring into the Dharma or even by doing one’s best to practice the Way. Looking at the Matter in this manner, they uselessly return to worldly ways, vainly waiting for It to fall down upon them from the heavens. Folks like this, I fear, are that type of non-Buddhist who believes that things just happen to happen, independent of any cause.
Shobogenzo, Bussho, Hubert Nearman

The single-log bridge is the experience of the common, inactive mind of “letting things be.” The great stone bridge of Joshu is only seen and experienced with wholehearted, accurately directed, intentional effort. Those that “just sit” and passively experience whatever happens to “spontaneously manifest” will never see the great stone bridge. That bridge is only seen by those willing to inform themselves of the whereabouts, known dangers, and means of travelling the path leading to it – and wholeheartedly following it until it is personally realized (made real). In Mahayana Buddhism, such aspiration is called giving rise to the intention to realize enlightenment; literally “bodhicitta” (or “bodhishin”) the thought or mind (citta, shin) of enlightenment (bodhi). In portraying the significance of this in Shobogenzo, Dogen cites the Buddha’s words from a passage of the Avatamsaka Sutra which he follows up with a comment that we “need to be clear” that to give rise to this intention is to “wholeheartedly seek enlightened wisdom.”

The Tathagata said in the Avatamsaka Scripture:

When Bodhisattvas give rise to the intention to realize Buddhahood and make birth-and-death the foremost issue, they wholeheartedly seek enlightened Wisdom and, being steadfast, they will not waver. The meritorious functioning of that single-mindedness is deep and vast, knowing no bounds. If I were to analyze and explain it, I would be unable to exhaust the topic, even if I had eons to do it.

You need to be clear about this: using the issue of birth-and-death to give rise to your intention to realize Buddhahood is to wholeheartedly seek enlightened Wisdom.
Shobogenzo, Hotsu Mujo Shin, Hubert Nearman

The Buddhist practitioner that genuinely arouses such aspiration will be unable to rest satisfied in the blankness of detachment and quietism that Zen calls the “the cave of inky darkness,” much less will they accept the authority of anything less than personal verification. Having opened the Dharma-Eye and seen the great stone bridge is to have realized the liberating truth that “clear seeing” (i.e. prajna itself) is actualizing the universe (genjokoan), and that actualizing the universe is actualizing the true self.

Throughout Shobogenzo, Dogen reminds practitioner to recall and maintain their initial desire to seek the Dharma; this initial desire is the initial spark of bodhi that can be brought to full flame or wane and sputter away. Zen Buddhism is grounded on the principle that the highest authority of the sincere practitioner can only be the Buddha wisdom inherent in their own body-mind; scriptures, teachings, and teachers are necessary guides and helpers, but they cannot give experiential verification.

Teachings, like all dharmas, are only real insofar as they are experienced; even a teaching of the Buddha himself cannot be real if it is not personally experienced. A Buddhist teaching is only true for one that receives it; “receiving” is a process inclusive of, (1) learning it (hearing/reading), (2) understanding it (study/clarification), (3) putting it into practice (practical application/real world testing), (4) verifying it (experiential proof/disproof). In the absence of the 4th aspect of “receiving” no truth exists.

Those that forfeit the authority of their own inherent Buddha to another demonstrate the self-doubt that is a barrier to all truth. Those that adopt views and practices by “authorities” that advocate detaching, cutting out, or eradicating particular aspects of the world or the body-mind not only blind themselves, they diminish the life of their own true self – which is the only Buddha there is.

At the same time, whether people are following a good spiritual teacher or following the Scriptures, all such persons are following their True Self. The Scriptural texts are, naturally, the Scriptural texts of Self, and good spiritual teachers are, naturally, good spiritual teachers of Self. Thus, you should investigate through your training that thorough training means thoroughly training oneself, that studying the hundreds of things which sprout up like grass means studying oneself, that studying the myriad things that take root and branch out like trees means studying oneself, and that this self is, of necessity, synonymous with making such an effort. By exploring like this through your training, you drop off self and you promise enlightenment to yourself.

Accordingly, in the Great Way of the Buddhas and Ancestors there are tools for awakening to one’s True Self and for realizing what that Self truly is. If there were no Buddhas or Ancestors who were genuine Dharma heirs, there would be no genuine Transmission. But there are tools that Dharma heir after Dharma heir has received, for were there not the Bones and Marrow of the Buddhas and Ancestors, there would not be a genuine Transmission.

Because we explore the Matter in this way, when we pass on the Transmission for the sake of others, we confer it by saying such things as “You have gotten what my Marrow is” and “I have the Treasure House of the Eye of the True Teaching which I confer on Makakasho.” Expressing It for someone’s sake does not necessarily depend on self and others. To express It for the sake of others is to express It for one’s own sake. It is one’s Self and another’s Self harmoniously hearing and expressing the same thing. One ear is hearing and one ear is expressing: one tongue is expressing and one tongue is hearing. The same holds true for the sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind, as well as for their forms of consciousness and their sense objects. Further, there is one Body and there is one Mind, and there is enlightenment and there is training. It is the hearing and expressing of one’s ears, and it is the hearing and expressing of one’s tongue.
Shobogenzo, Jisho Zammai, Hubert Nearman

Peace,
Ted

Dogen, Joshu, and Huineng revealing How Joyful It Is

How Joyful it is!

Zen Master Joshu was once asked by a monk what the difference was between himself, not yet having awakened, and Joshu who had awakened. Joshu described the differnce by saying, "I use time; you are used by time." A very similar point is illustrated in the story about Huineng (the sixth Zen ancestor in China) and "The monk who recites the Lotus Sutra," which culminates with Huineng's teaching about the difference between "Reciting a sutra, and being recited by a sutra."

Dogen, in Shobogenzo, Hokke-ten-Hokke, takes up the issue at the heart of these teachings and reveals a number of marvelous implications--exclaiming "how joyful" this truth is near the end of his writing:

-

How joyful it is! From kalpa to kalpa is the Flower of Dharma, and from noon to night is the Flower of Dharma. Because the Flower of Dharma is from kalpa to kalpa, and because the Flower of Dharma is from noon to night, even though our own body and mind growsstrong and grows weak, it is just the Flower of Dharma itself. The reality that exists “as it is” is “a treasure,” is “brightness,” is “a seat of truth,” is “wide, great, profound, and eternal,” is “profound, great, and everlasting,” is “mind in delusion, the Flower of Dharma turning,” and is “mind in realization, turning the Flower of Dharma,” which is really just the Flower of Dharma turning the Flower of Dharma.

When the mind is in the state of delusion, the Flower of Dharma turns.When the mind is in the state of realization, we turn the Flower of Dharma.If perfect realization can be like this,The Flower of Dharma turns the Flower of Dharma.

~Shobogenzo, Hokke-ten-hokke, Gudo Nishijima and Mike Cross

-

Thank you Dogen, I agree!

-

Peace,

Ted

Like and Dislike - The Blue Cliff Record Case 2

What Does the Blue Cliff Record teach us about Like and dislike, about Picking and Choosing?

Here is Joshu in Case 2

MAIN CASE

Chao Chou, teaching the assembly, said The Ultimate Path is without difficulty, it just avoids picking and choosing. As soon as there are words spoken ‘this’ is picking and choosing ‘that’ is clarity. This old monk does not abide within clarity "Do you still preserve anything or not?"

At that time a certain monk asked, "Since you do not abide within clarity, what do you preserve?"

Chao Chou replied, "I don’t know either."

The monk said, "Since you don’t know, Teacher, why do you nevertheless say that you do not abide within clarity?"

Chao Chou said, "It is enough to ask, make your bows and withdraw."

"Chao Chou, teaching the assembly, said." Yuan Wu comments, "What’s the old fellow doing?" Chao Chou did not start teaching until he was 80 years old. That is almost sixty years of polishing and deepening his realization after his initial awakening. Anyone interested in Zen ought to perk up like Yuan Wu, "Shhh, the old fellow is speaking…"

"‘The Ultimate Path is without difficulty.’" Yuan Wu comments, "Not hard, not easy."

Once the Layman P’ang was sitting in his cottage with his wife and daughter:
"Difficult, difficult, difficult," he suddenly exclaimed, "[like trying] to scatter ten measures of sesame seed all over a tree!"

"Easy, easy, easy," returned Mrs. P’ang, "just like touching your feet to the ground when you get out of bed."

Neither difficult nor easy," said Liang-chao. "On the hundred grass-tips, the Patriarchs’ meaning."
A Man of Zen, Sasaki, Iriya, Fraser

If Liang-chao and Yuan Wu are right, what about the layman and his wife? What about Chao Chou?

Leaving aside difficult and easy, what is the Ultimate Path, sometimes translated as the Great Way? Is it Buddha Dharma? Is it Tao? A monk asked Chao Chou about that:

The master said, "It’s just outside the fence."
The monk said, "I’m not asking about that."
The master said, "What ‘way’ are you asking about?"
The monk said, "The Great Way."
The master said, "The great way leads all the way to the capital."
The Recorded Sayings of Zen Master Joshu, James Green, p.108

He says outside the fence, what about inside the fence?

"It just avoids picking and choosing." In case 2 of the Mumonkan, we learn how old Pai Chang’s five hundred lifetimes as a fox became lives of grace when he was avoided picking and choosing.

One time Chao Chou revealed his own fox-nature while he was walking with an official in a garden and they saw a rabbit run away.
The official said, "you are a great and accomplished person, why did the rabbit run away when it saw you?"
The master said, "I like to kill."
The Recorded Sayings of Zen Master Joshu, p. 151

Chao Chou’s words seem incredible. However, if you can see the rabbit here, you will have mastered this case.

"As soon as there are words spoken." Chao Chou is setting out a pot of glue; it is hard to avoid being stuck here. What if words are not spoken?

Venerable Pi Mo Yen of Wu T’ai Shan Monastery used to carry a wooden pitchfork with him. Every time he saw a monk approaching him and bowing down for instruction, he pinned him by the neck with the fork and demanded, "What devil forced you to renounce the world (by becoming a monk)? What devil made you wander on pilgrimage? If you can say a word of Ch’an under the fork, you will die. If you can’t say a word of Ch’an under the fork, you will die. Now! Say something!"
There were few students who were able to respond to this demand.
The Transmission Of The Lamp, Sohaku Ogata, p.370

He does not say there were none who were able to respond, just that there were few. Have you seen Hsueh Tou’s comment on case 23?
"Today what is the purpose of travelling the mountains with these fellows" He also said, "Hundreds of thousands of years hence, I don’t say there are none, just that they will be few."

"This is picking and choosing." As soon as there are words spoken, "this" is picking and choosing. What is "this?" This is it. Does "it" go along with picking and choosing? Look at case 29.

A monk asked Ta Sui, "The conflagration at the end of the eon sweeps through and the universe is totally destroyed. I wonder, is this destroyed or not?"
Sui said, "It is destroyed."
The monk said, "If so, then this goes along with it."
Sui said, "It goes along with it."
Blue Cliff Record, Case 29

Is the "this" in this is picking and choosing "it?" The Ultimate Path is without difficulty; "it" just avoids picking and choosing. Could we re-phrase this, "The Ultimate Path avoids picking and choosing; it is just without difficulty"?

Dogen likes to remind us that nonduality is really nondual. Listen as he comments on the line, "In following worldly circumstances there are no hindrances", from a poem by the Layman Cho Setsu:
To turn one’s back on the Truth is wrong, and to approach the Truth is also wrong. The Truth is the approaching and the turning away, which, in each instance of approaching or turning away, are the Truth itself. Is there anyone who knows that this wrong is also the Truth?
Shobogenzo, Kuge, Gudo Nishijima & Mike Cross

Can we put this koan in the format of Dogen’s comment? Picking and choosing is wrong, and not being without difficulty is also wrong. The Ultimate Path is without difficulty and avoids picking and choosing, which, in each instance of without difficulty or avoiding picking and choosing is the Ultimate Path itself. Is there anyone who knows that this wrong is also the Ultimate Path?

"That is clarity." He said that "this" was picking and choosing; now he says "that" is clarity! What is going on here? Yuan Wu says, "People these days who practice meditation and ask about the Path, if they do not remain within picking and choosing, then they settle down within clarity." He means both remaining and settling down are wrong. How can we respond to the implicit challenge here?

What is not remaining? The Diamond Sutra says, "If Bodhisattvas practice giving charity with their minds not dwelling on things, they are like people with sight in the sunlight, seeing all sorts of shapes and colors." (T. Cleary)

What is not settling down? The Diamond Sutra says, "Dwell nowhere and bring forth that mind." (Misc. Koans)

"This old monk does not abide within clarity." He says he’s not settling down, and he demonstrates he’s not remaining.

"Do you still preserve anything or not?" This is Chao Chou’s reason for all his words; he is, after all, teaching the assembly. "Do you understand?" he asks. "My presentation about the third ancestors message is, this old monk does not abide within clarity. How would you say it?"

There is a dialogue where Tung Shan responds for a monk who was asked a similar question from an opposing point.
A monk asked, "What is the talk on no-talk?"
The Master {Pao Yun} asked, "Where is your mouth?"
The monk answered, "I have no mouth."
The Master said, "With what do you eat your food?"
The monk had no response. Tung Shan answered for him: "He does not get hungry, why should he eat food?"
The Transmission Of The Lamp, Sohaku Ogata, p.222

"At that time a certain monk asked." We should not skip over this line. At that time a certain monk is existence-time. Dogen reminds us, "Time does not pass."

The particular time of the deity [of yesterday] is also experienced precisely as my existence-time; though it appears to be far off, it is the realized now.
Shobogenzo, Uji, Hee-Jin Kim

"Since you do not abide within clarity, what do you preserve?" This monk shows his own non-preservation. He is saying, "As soon as Chao Chou’s words are spoken, ‘this old monk does not abide within clarity’, "this" is trailing mud and dripping water." This monk is like Pao Yun’s, "With what do you eat your food?"

"Chao Chou replied, ‘I don’t know either.’" Bodhidharma said, ‘I don’t know.’ They are not different, but they are not the same either. Yuan Wu says, "Many followers of Ch’an these days will also say when asked, ‘I don’t know either; I don’t understand.’ Nevertheless, though they are on the same road, they are not in the same groove." In case 51, Yen T’ou said, "Though Hseuh Feng is born on the same lineage as me, he doesn’t die in the same lineage."

The monk said, "Since you don’t know, Teacher, why do you nevertheless say that you do not abide within clarity?" This monk was sharp, but he did not know it had been settled. There was a similar exchange between the Layman P’ang and Ma Tsu:

Layman P’ang asked, "The unveiled original man asks you to look upward, please." The Patriarch looked straight down. The layman said, "Only the Master can play so wonderfully on a stringless lute. The Patriarch looked straight up. The layman bowed, and the Patriarch returned to his quarters. The layman followed him; when he entered the room, he said, "Just now bungled it trying to be wise."
Sun Face Buddha, Cheng Chien Bhikshu

Chao Chou said, "It is enough to ask, make your bows and withdraw."

Peace,

Ted Biringer

Soto and Rinzai Zen Masters on the Koan "Mu" (Tendo Nyojo & Mumon)

While the "Soto" and "Rinzai" Zen sects are asserted to differ on a variety of issues regarding the teachings of Zen practice and enlightenment, their differing view on the role of "Koans" is often the most emphatic.

In light of this, it is interesting to examine and compare the koan instructions given by two Zen masters that are both highly revered by their respective sects. For the "Soto" position, Master Eihei Dogen's teacher, Tendo Nyojo, is considered an excellent representitve. For the "Rinzai" position, Master Mumon, author of the Mumonkan, is considered to be one of the best koan representives in Zen history.

Fortunately, both of these masters are on record giving instruction on what is probably the most well known of all Zen koans, Case 1 of the Mumonkan. Look how these two Zen masters from opposite lineages approach Joshu's 'Mu.'

Jõshû's "Mu　趙州狗子

趙州和尚、因僧問、狗子還有佛性也無。州云、無。
A monk asked Jõshû, "Has a dog the Buddha Nature?" Jõshû answered, "Mu."

Now here is Mumon's instruction:

"In order to master Zen, you must pass the barrier of the patriarchs. To attain this subtle realization, you must completely cut off the way of thinking. If you do not pass the barrier, and do not cut off the way of thinking, then you will be like a ghost clinging to the bushes and weeds.

Now, I want to ask you, what is the barrier of the patriarchs? Why, it is this single word 'Mu.' That is the front gate to Zen. Therefore it is called the 'Mumonkan of Zen.' If you pass through it, you will not only see Jõshû face to face, but you will also go hand in hand with the successive patriarchs, entangling your eyebrows with theirs, seeing with the same eyes, hearing with the same ears. Isn't that a delightful prospect? Wouldn't you like to pass this barrier?

Arouse your entire body with its three hundred and sixty bones and joints and its eighty-four thousand pores of the skin; summon up a spirit of great doubt and concentrate on this word 'Mu.' Carry it continuously day and night. Do not form a nihilistic conception of vacancy, or a relative conception of 'has' or 'has not.' It will be just as if you swallow a red-hot iron ball, which you cannot spit out even if you try. All the illusory ideas and delusive thoughts accumulated up to the present will be exterminated, and when the time comes, internal and external will be spontaneously united. You will know this, but for yourself only, like a dumb man who has had a dream.

Then all of a sudden an explosive conversion will occur, and you will astonish the heavens and shake the earth. It will be as if you snatch away the great sword of the valiant general Kan'u and hold it in your hand. When you meet the Buddha, you kill him; when you meet the patriarchs, you kill them. On the brink of life and death, you command perfect freedom; among the sixfold worlds and four modes of existence, you enjoy a merry and playful samadhi.

Now, I want to ask you again, 'How will you carry it out?' Employ every ounce of your energy to work on this 'Mu.' If you hold on without interruption, behold: a single spark, and the holy candle is lit!'
~Trans. Katsuki Sekida

Here is Tendo Nyojo's instruction:

"When thoughts are flying around your mind in confusion, what do you do? 'A dog’s Buddha-nature? No (Mu).' This one word No (Mu) is an iron broom: Where you sweep there is a lot of flying around, and where there is a lot of flying around, you sweep. The more you sweep, the more there is. At this point where it is impossible to sweep, you throw your whole life into sweeping. Keep your spine straight day and night, and do not let your courage flag. All of a sudden you sweep away the totality of space, and all differentiations are clearly penetrated, so the source and its meanings become evident."
~ Trans. Thomas Cleary

Comparison:
Mumon: "...you must completely cut off the way of thinking...
Tendo Nyojo: "When thoughts are flying around your mind in confusion..."

Mumon: "'How will you carry it out?' Employ every ounce of your energy to work on this 'Mu.'"
Tendo Nyojo: "...what do you do? 'A dog's Buddha-nature? No (Mu)."

Mumon: "...what is the barrier of the patriarchs? Why, it is this single word 'Mu.'
Tendo Nyojo: "This one word No (Mu) is an iron broom..."

Mumon: "Arouse your entire body with its three hundred and sixty bones and joints and its eighty-four thousand pores of the skin; summon up a spirit of great doubt and concentrate on this word 'Mu.'"
Tendo Nyojo: "At this point where it is impossible to sweep, you throw your whole life into sweeping."

Mumon: "Carry it continuously day and night."
Tendo Nyojo: "Keep your spine straight day and night, and do not let your courage flag."

Mumon: "It will be just as if you swallow a red-hot iron ball, which you cannot spit out even if you try."
Tendo Nyojo: "The more you sweep, the more there is."

Mumon: "Then all of a sudden..."
Tendo Nyojo: "All of a sudden..."

Mumon: "All the illusory ideas and delusive thoughts accumulated up to the present will be exterminated... internal and external will be spontaneously united... an explosive conversion will occur..."
Tendo Nyojo: "...you sweep away the totality of space, and all differentiations are clearly penetrated..."

Mumon: "You will know this, but for yourself only..."
Tendo Nyojo: "...the source and its meanings become evident."

While there are some subtle differences here, the common characteristics seem to outweigh them for the most part. Having employed both of these methods to the best of my ability, I have not discerned any difference in the actual experience. If anyone else has, please share your comments.

Note: While both Tendo Nyojo and Mumon recommend taking up this koan in Zazen , I would not recommend doing so without a reliable teacher. Unfortunately, many Soto 'teachers' flatly deny that 'Soto' Zen masters (often they mean 'Dogen') ever recommended taking up koans in Zazen, hence few Soto 'teachers' have developed the capacity to instruct students in koan-introspection (this is not to say that no Soto teachers have undergone this training, but very few have).

Dogen's records are full of many references to the Mu koan, and I highly recommend his writings to see how he uses it in some intriguing ways.

Gassho,
Ted Biringer
For more Zen and Buddhist Resources check out The Flatbed Sutra Zen Blog