PRACTICAL METHODS OF ZEN INSTRUCTION
PRACTICAL METHODS OF ZEN INSTRUCTION
“WHAT is Zen?” This is one of the most difficult questions to answer, I mean, to the satisfaction of the inquirer; for Zen refuses even tentatively to be defined or described in any manner. The best way to understand it will be of course to study and practise it at least some years in the Meditation Hall. Therefore, even after the reader has carefully gone over this Essay, he will still be at sea as to the real signification of Zen. It is, in fact, in the very nature of Zen that it evades all definition and explanation, that is to say, Zen cannot be converted into ideas, it can never be described in logical terms. For this reason, the Zen masters declare that it is “independent of letter,” being “a special transmission outside the orthodox teachings.” But the purpose of this Essay is not just to demonstrate that Zen is an unintelligible thing and that there is no use of attempting to discourse about it. My object, on the contrary, will be to make it clear to the fullest extent of my ability, however imperfect and inadequate that may be. And there are several ways to do this. Zen may be treated psychologically, ontologically, or epistemologically, or historically as I did in the first part of this book to a certain extent. These are all extremely interesting each in its way, but they are a great undertaking requiring years of preparation. What here I propose to do, therefore, will be a practical exposition of the subject-matter by giving some aspects of the modus operandi of Zen instruction as carried out by the masters for the enlightenment of the pupils. The perusal of these accounts will help us to get into the spirit of Zen to the limits of its intelligibility.
I
As I conceive it, Zen is the ultimate fact of all philosophy and religion. Every intellectual effort must culminate in it or rather must start from it, if it is to bear any practical fruits. Every religious faith must spring from it if it has to prove at all efficiently and livingly workable in our active life. Therefore, Zen is not necessarily the fountain of Buddhist thought and life alone; it is very much alive also in Christianity, Mahommedanism, in Taoism, and even in positivistic Confucianism. What makes all these religions and philosophies vital and inspiring, keeping up their usefulness and efficiency, is due to the presence in them of what I may designate as the Zen element. Mere scholasticism or mere sacerdotalism will never create a living faith. Religion requires something inwardly propelling, energising, and capable of doing work. The intellect is useful in its place, but when it tries to cover the whole field of religion it dries up the source of life. Feeling or mere faith is so blind and will grasp anything that may come across and hold to it as the final reality. Fanaticism is vital enough as far as its explosiveness is concerned, but this is not a true religion, and its practical sequence is the destruction of the whole system, not to speak of the fate of its own being. Zen is what makes the religious feeling run through its legitimate channel and what gives life to the intellect.
Zen does this by giving one a new point of view of looking at things, a new way of appreciating the truth and beauty of life and the world, by discovering a new source of energy in the inmost recesses of consciousness, and by bestowing on one a feeling of completeness and sufficiency. That is to say, Zen works miracles by overhauling the whole system of one’s inner life and opening up a world hitherto entirely undreamt of. This may be called a resurrection. And Zen tends to emphasise the speculative element, though confessedly it opposes this, more than anything else in the whole process of the spiritual revolution, and in this respect Zen is truly Buddhistic. Or it may be better to say that Zen makes use of the phraseology belonging to the sciences of speculative philosophy. Evidently, the feeling element is not so prominently visible in Zen as in the Pure Land sects where “bakti” (faith) is all in all; Zen on the other hand emphasises the faculty of seeing (darśana) or knowing (vidyā) though not in the sense of reasoning out, but in that of intuitively grasping.
According to the philosophy of Zen, we are too much of a slave to the conventional way of thinking, which is dualistic through and through. No “interpenetration” is allowed, there takes place no fusing of opposites in our everyday logic. What belongs to God is not of this world, and what is of this world is incompatible with the divine. Black is not white, and white is not black. Tiger is tiger, and cat is cat, and they will never be one. Water flows, a mountain towers. This is the way things or ideas go in this universe of the senses and syllogisms. Zen, however, upsets this scheme of thought and substitutes a new one in which there exists no logic, no dualistic arrangement of ideas. We believe in dualism chiefly because of our traditional training. Whether ideas really correspond to facts is another matter requiring a special investigation. Ordinarily, we do not inquire into the matter, we just accept what is instilled into our minds; for to accept is more convenient and practical, and life is to a certain extent, though not in reality, made thereby easier. We are in nature conservatists, not because we are lazy, but because we like repose and peace, even superficially. But the time comes when traditional logic holds no more true, for we begin to feel contradictions and splits and consequently spiritual anguish. We lose trustful repose which we experienced when we blindly followed the traditional ways of thinking. Eckhart says that we are all seeking repose whether consciously or not, just as the stone cannot cease moving until it touches the earth. Evidently, the repose we seemed to enjoy before we were awakened to the contradictions involved in our logic, was not the real one, the stone has kept moving down towards the ground. Where then is the ground of non-dualism on which the soul can be really and truthfully tranquil and blessed? To quote Eckhart again, “Simple people conceive that we are to see God as if He stood on that side and we on this. It is not so; God and I are one in the act of my perceiving Him.” In this absolute oneness of things Zen establishes the foundations of its philosophy.
The idea of absolute oneness is not the exclusive possession of Zen, there are other religions and philosophies that preach the same doctrine. If Zen, like other monisms or theisms, merely laid down this principle and did not have anything specifically to be known as Zen, it would have long ceased to exist as such. But there is in Zen something unique which makes up its life and justifies its claim to be the most precious heritage of Eastern culture. The following “mondo” or dialogue (literally, questioning and answering)[6.1] will give us a glimpse into the ways of Zen. A monk asked Jōshu (Chao-chou), one of the greatest masters in China,[6.2] “What is the one ultimate word of truth?” Instead of giving him any specific answer, he made a simple response saying, “Yes.” The monk who naturally failed to see any sense in this kind of response asked for a second time, and to this the master roared back, “I am not deaf!”[f125] See how irrelevantly (shall I say?) the all-important problem of absolute oneness or of the ultimate reason is treated here! But this is characteristic of Zen, this is where Zen transcends logic and overrides the tyranny and misrepresentation of ideas. As I said before, Zen mistrusts the intellect, does not rely upon traditional and dualistic methods of reasoning, and handles problems after its own original manners.
To cite another instance before going further into the subject proper. The same old Jōshu was asked another time, “One light divides itself into hundreds of thousands of lights; may I ask where this one light originates?”[f126][6.5] This question like the last mentioned is one of the deepest and most baffling problems of philosophy. But the old master did not waste much time in answering the question, nor did he resort to any wordy discussion. He simply threw off one of his shoes without a remark. What did he mean by it? To understand all this, it is necessary that we should acquire a “third eye” as they say, and learn to look at things from a new point of view.
How is this new way of looking at things demonstrated by the Zen masters? Their methods are naturally very uncommon, unconventional, illogical, and consequently incomprehensible to the uninitiated. The object of the present essay will be to describe those methods classified under the following general headings: I. Verbal Method, and II. Direct Method. The first method may be further divided into: 1. Paradox; 2. Going Beyond Opposites; 3. Contradiction; 4. Affirmation; 5. Repetition; and 6. Exclamation. The Direct Method, so called, means a display of physical force, and may be subdivided into several groups such as gesture, striking, performance of a definite set of acts, directing others to move about, etc. But as I do not mean to offer here any scientific and thoroughgoing classification of the Zen masters’ ways of dealing with their pupils in order to initiate them into the mysteries of Zen, I will not attempt to be exhaustive in this article. Later I will write fully about the Direct Method. If I make the reader acquire here a kind of understanding as to the general tendencies and peculiarities of Zen Buddhism, I regard my task as a success.
II
It is well-known that all mystics are fond of paradoxes to expound their views. For instance, a Christian mystic may say: “God is real, yet he is nothing, infinite emptiness; he is at once all-being and no-being. The divine kingdom is real and objective; and at the same time it is within myself—I myself am heaven and hell.” Eckhart’s “divine darkness” or “immovable mover” is another example. I believe we can casually pick up any such statements in mystic literature, and compile a book of mystic irrationalities. Zen is no exception in this respect, but in its way of thus expressing the truth there is something we may designate characteristically Zen. It principally consists in the concreteness and vividness of expression. It generally refuses to lend an ear to abstractions. A few examples will be given. According to Fudaishi (Fu-ta-shih)[6.8];
“Empty-handed I go and yet the spade is in my hands;
I walk on foot, and yet on the back of an ox I am riding:
When I pass over the bridge,
Lo, the water floweth not, but the bridge doth flow.”
This sounds altogether out of reason, but in fact Zen abounds with such graphic irrationalities. “The flower is not red, nor is the willow green”—is one of the best known utterances of Zen, and is regarded as the same as its affirmative: “The flower is red and the willow is green.” To put it in logical formula, it will run like this: “A is at once A and not-A.” If so, I am I and yet you are I. An Indian philosopher asserts that Tat twam asi, Thou art it. If so, heaven is hell and God is Devil. To pious orthodox Christians, what a shocking doctrine this Zen is! When Mr Chang drinks Mr Li grows tipsy. The silent thundering Vimalakīrti confessed that he was sick because all his fellow-beings were sick. All wise and loving souls must be said to be the embodiments of the Great Paradox of the universe. But I am digressing. What I wanted to say was that Zen is more daringly concerte in its paradoxes than other mystical teachings. The latter are more or less confined to general statements concerning life or God or the world, but Zen carries its paradoxical assertions into every detail of our daily life. It has no hesitation in flatly denying all our most familiar facts of experience, “I am writing here and yet I have not written a word. You are perhaps reading this now and yet there is not a person in the world who reads. I am utterly blind and deaf, but every colour is recognised and every sound discerned.” The Zen masters will go on like this indefinitely. Basho (Pa-chiao), a Korean monk of the ninth century, once delivered a famous sermon which ran thus: “If you have a staff (shujo, or chu-chang in Chinese), I will give you one; if you have not, I will take it away from you.”[6.9]
When Jōshu, the great Zen master of whom mention was repeatedly made, was asked what he would give when a poverty-stricken fellow should come to him, he replied, “What is wanting in him?”[f127][6.10] When he was asked on another occasion, “When a man comes to you with nothing, what would you say to him?” his immediate response was, “Cast it away!”[6.11] We may ask him, When a man has nothing, what will he cast? When a man is poor, can he be said to be sufficient unto himself? Is he not in need of everything? Whatever deep meaning there may be in these answers of Jōshu, the paradoxes are quite puzzling and baffle our logically trained intellect. “Carry away the farmer’s oxen, and make off with the hungry man’s food,” is a favourite phrase with the Zen masters who think we can thus best cultivate our spiritual farm and fill up the soul hungry for the substance of things.
It is related that Ōkubo Shibun, famous for painting bamboo, was requested to execute a kakemono representing a bamboo forest. Consenting, he painted with all his known skill a picture in which the entire bamboo grove was in red. The patron upon its receipt marvelled at the extraordinary skill with which the painting had been executed, and, repairing to the artist’s residence, he said: “Master, I have come to thank you for the picture; but, excuse me, you have painted the bamboo red.” “Well,” cried the master, “in what colour would you desire it?” “In black, of course,” replied the patron. “And who,” answered the artist, “ever saw a black-leaved bamboo?” When one is so used to a certain way of looking at things, one finds it so full of difficulties to veer round and start on a new line of procedure. The true colour of the bamboo is perhaps neither red nor black nor green nor any other colour known to us. Perhaps it is red, perhaps it is black just as well. Who knows? The imagined paradoxes may be after all really not paradoxes.
III
The next form in which Zen expresses itself is the denial of opposites, somehow corresponding to the mystic “via negativa.” The point is not to be “caught” as the masters would say in any of the four propositions (catushkotika): 1. “It is A”; 2. “It is not A”; 3. “It is both A and not-A”; and 4. “It is neither A nor not-A.” When we make a negation or an assertion, we are sure to get into one of these logical formulas according to the Indian method of reasoning. As long as the intellect is to move along the ordinary dualistic groove, this is unavoidable. It is in the nature of our logic that any statement we can make is to be so expressed. But Zen thinks that the truth can be reached when it is neither asserted nor negated. This is indeed the dilemma of life, but the Zen masters are ever insistent on escaping the dilemma. Let us see if they escape free.
According to Ummon,[6.12] “In Zen there is absolute freedom; sometimes it negates and at other times it affirms; it does either way at pleasure.” A monk asked, “How does it negate?” “With the passing of winter there cometh spring.” “What happens when spring cometh?” “Carrying a staff across the shoulders, let one ramble about in the fields, east or west, north or south, and beat the old stumps to one’s heart’s content.” This was one way to be free as shown by one of the greatest masters in China. Another way follows.
The masters generally go about with a kind of short stick known as shippé (chu-pi), or at least they did so in old China. It does not matter whether it is a shippé or not, anything in fact will answer our purpose. Shuzan, a noted Zen master of the tenth century, held out his stick and said to a group of his disciples:[6.13] “Call it not a shippé; if you do, you assert. Nor do you deny its being a shippé; if you do, you negate. Apart from affirmation and negation, speak, speak!” The idea is to get our heads free from dualistic tangles and philosophic subtleties. A monk came out of the rank, took the shippé away from the master’s hand, and threw it down on the floor. Is this the answer? Is this the way to respond to the master’s request “to speak”? Is this the way to transcend the four propositions—the logical conditions of thinking? In short, is this the way to be free? Nothing is stereotyped in Zen, and somebody else may solve the difficulty in quite a different manner. This is where Zen is original and creative.
Ummon expressed the same idea with his staff, which he held up, saying,[6.14] “What is this? If you say it is a staff, you go right to hell; but if it is not a staff, what is it?” Hima’s (Pi-mo) way somewhat deviated from this. He used to carry a forked stick and whenever a monk came up to him and made a bow, he applied the stick on the neck of the monk, and said,[6.15] “What devil taught you to be a homeless monk? What devil taught you to go round? Whether you can say something, or whether you cannot say anything, all the same you are to die under my fork: speak, speak, be quick!” Tokusan (Tê-shan) was another master who flourished a stick to the same effect; for he used to say[6.16]: “No matter what you say, or what you say not, just the same thirty blows for you?”
When the ownership of a kitten was disputed between two parties of monks, the Master Nansen (Nan-ch‘üan P‘u-yüan, 749–835) came out, took hold of the animal, and said to them,[6.17] “If you can say a word, this will be saved: if not, it will be slain.” By “a word” of course he meant one that transcended both affirmation and negation, as when Jōshu was asked for “One word of the ultimate truth.” No one made a response, whereupon the master slew the poor creature. Nansen looks like a hard-hearted Buddhist, but his point is: To say it is, involves us in a dilemma; to say it is not, puts us in the same predicament. To attain to the truth, this dualism must be avoided. How do you avoid it? It may not only be the loss of the life of a kitten, but the loss of your own life and soul, if you fail to ride over this impasse. Hence Nansen’s drastic procedure. Later, in the evening Jōshu who was one of his disciples came back, when the master told him of the incident of the day. Jōshu at once took off one of his straw sandals and putting it over his head began to depart. Upon this, said the master, “What a pity you were not to-day with us, for you could have saved the kitten.” This strange behaviour, however, was Jōshu’s way of affirming the truth transcending the dualism of “to be” (sat) and “not to be” (asat).
While Kyōzan (Yang-shan, 804–890) was residing at Tōhei (Tung-ping) of Shao-chou, his master Isan (Wei-shan, 771–853),—both of whom were noted Zen masters of the T‘ang dynasty—sent him a mirror accompanied with a letter.[6.18] Kyōzan held forth the mirror before a congregation of monks and said, “O monks, Isan has sent here a mirror. Is this Isan’s mirror or mine own? If you say it is Isan’s, how is it that the mirror is in my hands? If you say it is mine own, has it not come from Isan? If you make a proper statement, it will be retained here. If you cannot, it will be smashed in pieces.” He said this for three times but nobody even made an attempt to answer. The mirror was then smashed. This was somewhat like the case of Nansen’s kitten. In both cases the monks failed to save the innocent victim or the precious treasure, simply because their minds were not yet free from intellectualism and were unable to break through the entanglements purposely set up by Nansen in one case and by Kyōzan in the other. The Zen method of training its followers thus appears so altogether out of reason and unnecessarily inhuman. But the master’s eyes are always upon the truth absolute and yet attainable in this world of particulars. If this can be gained, what does it matter whether a thing known as precious be broken and an animal be sacrificed? Is not the recovering of the soul more important than the loss of a kingdom?
Kyōgen (Hsiang-yen),[6.19] a disciple of Isan (Wei-shan), with whom we got acquainted just now, said in one of his sermons: “It is like a man over a precipice one thousand feet high, he is hanging himself there with a branch of a tree between his teeth, the feet are far off the ground, and his hands are not taking hold of anything. Suppose another man coming to him to propose a question, ‘What is the meaning of the first patriarch coming over here from the west?’ If this man should open the mouth to answer, he is sure to fall and lose his life; but if he would make no answer, he must be said to ignore the inquirer. At this critical moment what should he do?” This is putting the negation of opposites in a most graphically illustrative manner. The man over the precipice is caught in a dilemma of life and death, and there can be no logical quibblings. The cat may be sacrificed at the altar of Zen, the mirror may be smashed on the ground, but how about one’s own life? The Buddha in one of his former lives is said to have thrown himself down into the maw of a man-devouring monster, in order to get the whole stanza of the truth. Zen being practical wants us to make the same noble determination to give up our dualistic life for the sake of enlightenment and eternal peace. For it says that its gate will open when this determination is reached.
The logical dualism of “to be” (asti) and “not to be” (nasti) is frequently expressed by Zen masters by such terms of contrast as are used in our daily parlance: “taking life” and “giving life,” “capturing” and “releasing,” “giving” and “taking away,” “coming in contact” and “turning away from,”[6.20] etc. Ummon once held up his staff and declared: “The whole world, heaven and earth, altogether owes its life and death to this staff.” A monk came out and asked, “How is it killed?” “Writhing in agony!” “How is it restored to life?” “You had better be a chéf.” “When it is neither put to death nor living, what would you say?” Ummon rose from his seat and said, “Mo-hê-pan-jê-po-lo-mi-ta!” (Mahā-prajñā-pāramitā).[6.21] This was Ummon’s synthesis—“the one word” of the ultimate truth, in which thesis and antithesis are concretely unified, and to which the four propositions are inapplicable (rahita).
IV
We now come to the third class I have styled, “Contradiction,” by which I mean the Zen master’s negation, implicitly or expressly, of what he himself has stated or what has been stated by another. To one and the same question his answer is sometimes “No,” sometimes “Yes.” Or to a well-known and fully-established fact he gives an unqualified denial. From an ordinary point of view he is altogether unreliable, yet he seems to think that the truth of Zen requires such contradictions and denials; for Zen has a standard of its own, which, to our common-sense minds, consists just in negating everything we properly hold true and real. In spite of these apparent confusions, the philosophy of Zen is guided by a thorough-going principle which, when once grasped, its topsy-turviness becomes the plainest truth.
A monk asked the sixth patriarch of the Zen sect in China, who flourished late in the seventh and early in the eighth century, “Who has attained to the secrets of Wobai (Huang-mei)?” Wobai is the name of the mountain where the fifth patriarch, Hung-jên used to reside, and, it was a well-known fact that Hui-nêng, the sixth patriarch, studied Zen under him and succeeded in the orthodox line of transmission. The question was therefore really not a plain regular one, seeking an information about facts. It had quite an ulterior object. The reply of the sixth patriarch was, “One who understands Buddhism has attained to the secrets of Wobai.”
“Have you then attained them?”
“No, I have not.”
“How is it,” asked the monk, “that you have not?”
The answer was, “I do not understand Buddhism.”[f128][6.22]
Did he not really understand Buddhism? Or is it that not to understand is to understand? This is also the philosophy of the Kena-Upanishad.
The self-contradiction of the sixth patriarch is somewhat mild and indirect when compared with that of Dōgo (Tao-wu). He succeeded to Yakusan (Yüeh-shan Wei-yen, 751–834), but when he was asked by Gohō (Wu-fêng) whether he knew the old master of Yakusan, he flatly denied it, saying,[6.23] “No, I do not.” Gohō was however persistent, “Why do you not know him?” “I do not, I do not,” was the emphatic statement of Dōgo. The latter thus singularly enough refused to give any reason except simply and forcibly denying the fact which was apparent to our common-sense knowledge.
Another emphatic and unequivocal contradiction by Tesshikaku (T‘ieh-tsui Chiao) is better known to students of Zen than the case just cited.[6.24] He was a disciple of Jōshu (Chao-chou). When he visited Hōgen (Fa-yen Wên-i, died 958), another great Zen master, the latter asked him, what was the last place he came from. Tesshikaku replied that he came from Jōshu. Said Hōgen,
“I understand that a cypress tree once became the subject of his talk; was that really so?”
Tesshikaku was positive in his denial, saying, “He had no such talk.”
Hōgen protested, “All the monks coming from Jōshu lately speak of his reference to a cypress tree in answer to a monk’s question, ‘What was the real object of the coming east of Bodhi-dharma?’ How do you say that Jōshu made no such reference to a cypress tree?”
Whereupon Tesshikaku roared, “My late master never made such a talk; no slighting allusion to him, if you please!”
Hōgen greatly admired this attitude on the part of the disciple of the famous Jōshu, and said, “Truly, you are a lion’s child!”
In Zen literature, Dharma’s coming from the west, that is, from India, is quite frequently made the subject of the discourse. When a question is asked as to the real object of his coming over to China, it refers to the ultimate principle of Buddhism, and has nothing to do with his personal motive which made him cross the ocean, landing him at some point along the southern coast of China. The historical fact is not the issue here. And to this all-important question numerous answers are given, but so varied and so unexpectedly odd, yet according to Zen masters all expressive of the truth of their teaching.
This contradiction, negation, or paradoxical statement is the inevitable result of the Zen way of looking at life. The whole emphasis of its discipline is placed on the intuitive grasping of the inner truth deeply hidden in our consciousness. And this truth thus revealed or awakened within oneself defies intellectual manipulation, or at least cannot be imparted to others through any of dialectical formulas. It must come out of oneself, grow within oneself, and become one with one’s own being. What others, that is, ideas or images can do, is to indicate the way where lies the truth. This is what Zen masters do. And the indicators given by them are naturally unconventionally free and refreshingly original. As their eyes are always fixed on the ultimate truth itself, anything and everything they can command is utilised to accomplish the end, regardless of its logical conditions and consequences. This indifference to logic is sometimes asserted purposely, just to let us know that the truth of Zen is independent of the intellect. Hence the statement in the Prañā-pāramitā Sūtra, that “Not to have any Dharma to discourse about—this is discoursing about the Dharma.” (Dharmadeśanā dharmadeśaneti subhūte nāsti sa kaścid dharmo yo dharmadeśanā nāmotpalabhyate.)
Haikyu (P‘ei Hsiu), a state minister of the T‘ang dynasty, was a devoted follower of Zen under Ōbaku. One day[6.25] he showed him a manuscript in which his understanding of Zen was stated. The master took it, and setting it down beside him, made no movement to read it, but remained silent for some little while. He then said, “Do you understand?” “Not quite,” answered the minister. “If you have an understanding here,” said the master, “there is something of Zen. But if it is committed to paper and ink, nowhere is our religion to be found.” Something analogous to this we have already noticed in Hakuin’s interview with Shōju Rōnin. Being a living fact, Zen is only where living facts are handled. Appeal to the intellect is real and living as long as it issues directly from life. Otherwise, no amount of literary accomplishment or of intellectual analysis avails in the study of Zen.
V
So far Zen appears to be nothing but a philosophy of negation and contradiction, whereas in fact it has its affirmative side, and in this consists the uniqueness of Zen. In most forms of mysticism, speculative or emotional, their assertions are general and abstract, and there is not much in them that will specifically distinguish them from some of the philosophical dictums. Sings Blake for instance:
“To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.”
Again listen to the exquisite feelings expressed in the lines of Wither:
“By the murmur of a spring,
Or the least bough’s rustling;
By a daisy, whose leaves spread
Shut when Titan goes to bed;
Or a shady bush or tree—
She could more infuse in me
Than all nature’s beauties can
In some other wiser man.”
It is not very difficult to understand these poetic and mystical feelings as expressed by the highly sensitive souls, though we may not all realise exactly as they felt. Even when Eckhart declares that “the eye with which I see God is the same with which God sees me,” or when Plotinus refers to “that which mind, when it turns back, thinks before it thinks itself,” we do not find it altogether beyond our understanding to get at their meaning as far as the ideas are concerned which they try to convey in these mystical utterances. But when we come to statements by the Zen masters, we are entirely at sea how to take them. Their affirmations are as irrelevant, so inappropriate, so irrational, and so nonsensical—at least superficially, that those who have not gained the Zen way of looking at things can hardly make, as we say, heads or tails of them. The truth is that even with full-fledged mystics they are unable to be quite free from the taint of intellection, and leave as a rule “traces” by which their holy abode could be reached. Plotinus’ “flight from alone to alone” is a great mystical utterance proving how deeply he delved into the inner sanctuary of our consciousness. But there is still something speculative or metaphysical about it, and when it is put side by side with the Zen utterances to be cited below, it has, as the masters would say, a mystic flavour on the surface. So long as the masters are indulging in negations, denials, contradictions, or paradoxes, the stain of speculation is not quite washed off of them. Naturally, Zen is not opposed to speculation as it is also one of the functions of the mind. But Zen has travelled along a different path altogether unique, I think, in the history of mysticism, whether Eastern or Western, Christian or Buddhist. A few examples will suffice to illustrate my point.
A monk asked Jōshu,[6.26] “I read in the Sutra that all things return to the One, but where does this One return to?” Answered the master, “When I was in the province of Tsing I had a robe made which weighed seven chin.” When Kōrin (Hsiang-lin Yüan)[6.27] was asked what was the signification of Bodhi-Dharma’s coming from the West, his reply was, “After a long sitting one feels fatigued.” What is the logical relation between the question and the answer? Does it refer to Dharma’s nine years’ sitting against the wall as the tradition has it? If so, was his propaganda much ado for nothing except his feeling fatigued? When Kwazan (Hê-shan)[6.28] was asked what the Buddha was, he said, “I know how to play the drum, rub-a-dub, rub-a-dub!” (chieh ta ku). When Baso Dōichi was sick,[6.29] one of his disciples came and inquired about his condition, “How do you feel to-day?” “Nichimen-butsu, Gwachimen-butsu!” was the reply which literally means “sun-faced Buddha, moon-faced Buddha!” A monk asked Jōshu,[6.30] “When the body crumbles all to pieces and returns to the dust, there eternally abides one thing. Of this I have been told, but where does this one thing abide?” The master replied, “It is windy again this morning.” When Shuzan (Shou-shan) was asked what was the principal teaching of Buddhism, he quoted a verse[6.31]:
“By the castle of the king of Ch‘u,
Eastward flows the stream of Ju.”
“Who is the teacher of all the Buddhas?”[6.32] was the question put to Bokuju (Mu-chou), who in reply merely hummed a tune, “Ting-ting, tung-tung, ku-ti, ku-tung!” To the question what Zen was, the same master gave the following answer, “Namu-sambo!” (namoratnatrayāya). The monk however confessed that he could not understand it, whereupon the master exclaimed, “O you miserable frog, whence is this evil karma of yours?” On another occasion, the same question called out a different answer, which was, “Makahannyaharamii!” (mahāprajñāpāramitā). When the monk failed to comprehend the ultimate meaning of the phrase, the master went on:
“My robe is all worn out after so many years’ usage,
And parts of it in shreds loosely hanging, have been blown away to the clouds!”
To quote another case from Bokuju, he was once asked by a monk, “What is the doctrine that goes beyond the Buddhas and Fathers?” The master immediately holding up his staff said to the congregation, “I call this a staff, and what would you call it?” No answer was forthcoming, whereupon the master again holding forth the staff asked the monk, “Did you not ask me about the doctrine that goes beyond the Buddhas and Fathers?”
When Nan-yin Yê-gu (Nan-yüan Hui-yung)[6.33] was once asked what the Buddha was, he said, “What is not the Buddha?” Another time his answer was, “I never knew him.” There was still another occasion when he said, “Wait until there is one, for then I will tell you.” So far Nan-yin does not seem to be so very incomprehensible, but what follows will challenge our keenest intellectual analysis. When the inquiring monk replied to the master’s third statement, saying, “If so, there is no Buddha in you,” the master promptly asserted, “You are right there.” This evoked a further question, “Where am I right, sir?” “This is the thirtieth day of the month,” replied the master.
Ki-su Chi-jo (Kuei-tsung Chih-ch‘ang) was one of the able disciples of Baso (Ma-tsu).[6.34] When he was weeding in the garden, a Buddhist scholar versed in the philosophy of Buddhism came to see the master. A snake happened to pass by them, and the master at once killed it with a spade. The philosopher-monk remarked, “How long I have heard of the name of Kisu, and how reverently I have thought of it! But what do I see now but a rude-mannered monk?” “O my scholar-monk,” said the master, “you had better go back to the Hall and have a cup of tea over there.” Kisu’s retort as it stands here is quite unintelligible as far as our common-sense knowledge of worldly affairs goes; but according to another informant Kisu is reported, when he was reproached by the monk, to have said this, “Who is the rude-mannered one, you or I?” Then said the monk, “What is rude-mannered?” The master held up the spade. “What is refined? “He now assumed the attitude as if to kill the snake. “If so,” said the monk, “you are behaving according to the law.” “Enough with my lawful or unlawful behaviour,” demanded the master, “when did you see my killing the snake anyway?” The monk made no answer.[6.34a]
Perhaps this is sufficient to show how freely Zen deals with those abstruse philosophical problems which have been taxing all human ingenuity ever since the dawn of intelligence. Let me conclude this part with a sample sermon delivered by Goso Hōyen (Wu-tsu Fa-yen); for a Zen master occasionally, no, quite frequently, comes down to the dualistic level of understanding and tries to deliver a speech for the edification of his pupils. But being a Zen sermon we naturally expect something unusual in it. Goso was one of the ablest Zen masters of the twelfth century. He was the teacher of Yengo (Yüan-wu) famous as the author of the Hekiganshu. One of his sermons runs thus[6.35]:
“Yesterday I came across one topic which I thought I might communicate to you, my pupils, to-day. But an old man such as I am is apt to forget, and the topic has gone off altogether from my mind. I cannot just recall it.” So saying, Goso remained quiet for some little time, but at last he exclaimed, “I forget, I forget, I cannot remember!” He resumed however, “I know there is a mantram in one of the Sutras known as The King of Good Memory. Those who are forgetful may recite it, and the thing forgotten will come again. Well, I must try.” He then recited the mantram, “Om o-lo-lok-kei svāha!” Clapping his hands and laughing heartily he said, “I remember, I remember; this it was: When you seek the Buddha, you cannot see him: when you look for the patriarch, you cannot see him. The muskmelon is sweet even to the stems, the bitter gourd is bitter even to the roots.”
He then came down from the pulpit without further remark.
VI
In one of his sermons, Eckhart referring to the mutual relationship between God and man, says: “It is as if one stood before a high mountain and cried, ‘Art thou there?’ The echo comes back, ‘Art thou there?’ If one cries, ‘Come out!’ the echo answers, ‘Come out!’” Something like this is to be observed in the Zen masters’ answers now classified under “Repetition.” It may be found hard for the uninitiated to penetrate into the inner meaning of those parrot-like repetitions which sometimes sound like mimicry on the part of the master. In this case indeed the words themselves are mere sounds, and the inner sense is to be read in the echoing itself if anywhere. The understanding however must come out of one’s own inner life and what the echoing does is to give this chance of self-awakening to the earnest seekers of truth. When the mind is so timed as to be all ready to break into a certain note, the master turns the key and it sings out its own melody, not learned from anybody else but discovered within itself. And this turning the key in the form of repetition in this case is what interests us in the following quotations.
Chōsui (Ch‘ang-shui Tzu-hsüan)[6.36] once asked Yekaku (Hui-chiao), of Mount Rōya (Lang-yeh), who lived in the first half of the eleventh century, “How is it that the Originally Pure has all of a sudden come to produce mountains and rivers and the great earth?” The question is taken from the Śūrangama-sūtra in which Purna asks of the Buddha how the Absolute came to evolve this phenomenal world. For this is a great philosophical problem that has perplexed the greatest minds of all ages. So far all the interpretations making up the history of thought have proved unsatisfactory in one way or another. Chōsui also being a student of philosophy in a way has now come to his teacher to be enlightened on the subject. But the teacher’s answer was no answer as we understand it, for he merely repeated the question, “How is it that the Originally Pure has all of a sudden come to produce mountains and rivers and the great earth?” Translated into English, this dialogue loses much of its zest. Let me write it down in Japanese-Chinese: Chōsui asked, “Shō-jō hon-nen un-ga kos-sho sen-ga dai-ji,” and the master echoed, “Shō-jō hon-nen un-ga kos-sho sen-ga dai-ji.”
This was not, however, enough. Later, in the thirteenth century another great Zen master, Kido (Hsü-t‘ang), commented on this in a still more mystifying manner.[6.37] His sermon one day ran in this wise: “When Chōsui asked Yekaku, ‘Shō-jō hon-nen un-ga kos-sho sen-ga dai-ji,’ the question was echoed back to the questioner himself, and it is said that the spiritual eye of the disciple was then opened. I now want to ask you how this could have happened. Were not the question and the answer exactly the same? What reason did Chōsui find in this? Let me comment on it.” Whereupon he struck his chair with the hossu, and said, “Shō-jō hon-nen un-ga kos-sho sen-ga dai-ji.” His comment complicates the matter instead of simplifying it.
This has ever been a great question of philosophy—this question of unity and multiplicity, of mind and matter, of thought and reality. Zen, being neither idealism nor realism, proposes its own way of solution as is illustrated in the case of the Originally Pure. The following one solves the problem also in its own way. A monk asked Chōsa Keishin,[6.38] “How do we, transforming (chuan) mountains and rivers and the earth, reduce them into the Self?” Replied the master, “How do we, transforming the Self, produce mountains and rivers and the earth?” The monk confessed ignorance, whereupon said the master:
“In this city south of the Lake, people are thriving well,—
Cheap rice and plentiful fuel and prospering neighbourhood.”
Tōsu Daido (T‘ou-tzu Tai-t‘ung),[6.39] of the T‘ang dynasty, who died in the year 914, answered “The Buddha,” when he was questioned, “What is the Buddha?” He said “Tao” when the question was, “What is Tao?” He answered “the Dharma” to the question, “What is the Dharma?”
When Jōshu asked Kwanchu (Tai-tz‘u Huan-chung)[6.40] of the ninth century, “What is the being [or substance] of Prajñā?” Kwanchu without giving any answer simply echoed the question, “What is the being of Prajñā?” And this brought out a hearty laugh on the part of Jōshu. Prajñā may be translated supreme intelligence, and Mañjuśrī is regarded by the Mahayanists as the embodiment of Prajñā. But in this case Mañjuśrī has nothing to do with it. The question is concerned with the substantial conception of Prajñā, which, being a form of mental activity, requires something to abide in. According to Buddhist philosophy, there are three fundamental conceptions to explain the problem of existence: Substance or Being (bhāva), Appearance or Aspect (lakshaṇa), and Function or Activity (kṛitya). Or, to use the terms of the Mādhyamika, the three conceptions are actor, act, and acting. Prajñā being an intellectual acting, there must be an agent or substance back of it. Hence the question: What is the being or body of Prajñā? Now, the answer or echo given out by Kwanchu does not explain anything, we are at a loss as far as its conceptual signification goes. The Zen masters do not give us any literary clue to get around what we see on the surface. When we try to understand it intellectually, it slips away from us. It must be approached therefore from another plane of unconsciousness. Unless we move on to the same plane where the masters stand, or unless we abandon so-called common-sense way of reasoning, there is no possible bridge which will carry us over the chasm dividing our intellection from their apparently psittacine repetitions.
In this case, as in other cases, the idea of the masters is to show the way where the truth of Zen is to be experienced, but not in and through the language which they use and which we all use, as the means of communicating ideas. Language, in case they resort to words, serves as an expression of feelings or moods or inner states, but not of ideas, and therefore it becomes entirely incomprehensible when we search its meaning in the words of the masters as embodying ideas. Of course, words are not to be altogether disregarded inasmuch as they correspond to the feelings or experiences. To know this is more important in the understanding of Zen. Language is then with the Zen masters a kind of exclamation or ejaculation as directly coming out of their inner spiritual experience. No meaning is to be sought in the expression itself, but within ourselves, in our own minds, which are awakened to the same experience. Therefore, when we understand the language of the Zen masters, it is the understanding of ourselves and not the sense of the language which reflects ideas and not the experienced feelings themselves. Thus it is impossible to make those understand Zen who have not had any Zen experience yet, just as it is impossible for the people to realise the sweetness of honey who have never tasted it before. With such people, “sweet” honey will ever remain as an idea altogether devoid of sense, that is, the word has no life with them.
Goso Hōyen first studied the Yogācāra school of Buddhist philosophy and came across the following passage: “When the Bodhisattva enters on the path of knowledge, he finds that the discriminating intellect is identified with Reason, and that the objective world is fused with Intelligence, and there is no distinction to be made between the knowing and the known.” The anti-Yogācārians refuted this statement, saying that if the knowing is not distinguished from the known, how is knowledge at all possible? The Yogācārians could not answer this criticism, when Hsüan-chang who was at the time in India interposed and saved his brethren in faith from the quandary. His answer was: “It is like drinking water, one knows by oneself whether it is cold or not.” When Goso read this, he questioned himself, “What is this that makes one know thus by oneself?” This was the way he started on his Zen tour, for his Yogācāra friends being philosophers could not enlighten him, and he finally came to a Zen master for instruction.
Before we proceed to the next subject, let me cite another case of echoing. Hōgen Mon-yeki (Fa-yen Wen-i), the founder of the Hōgen branch of Zen Buddhism, flourished early in the tenth century. He asked one of his disciples, “What do you understand by this: ‘Let the difference be even a tenth of an inch, and it will grow as wide as heaven and earth’?” The disciple said, “Let the difference be even a tenth of an inch, and it will grow as wide as heaven and earth.” Hōgen however told him that such an answer will never do. Said the disciple, “I cannot do otherwise; how do you understand?” The master at once replied, “Let the difference be even a tenth of an inch, and it will grow as wide as heaven and earth.”[f129][6.41]
Hōgen was a great master of repetitions, and there is another interesting instance. After trying to understand the ultimate truth of Zen under fifty-four masters,[6.42] Tokusho (Tê-shao, 907–971) finally came to Hōgen; but tired of making special efforts to master Zen, he simply fell in with the rest of the monks there. One day when the master ascended the platform, a monk asked, “What is one drop of water dripping from the source of So[f130] (Ts‘ao)?” Said the master, “That is one drop of water dripping from the source of So.” The monk failed to make anything out of the repetition and stood as if lost; while Tokusho who happened to be by him had for the first time his spiritual eye opened to the inner meaning of Zen, and all the doubts he had been cherishing secretly down in his heart were thoroughly dissolved. He was altogether another man after that.
Such cases as this conclusively show that Zen is not to be sought in ideas or words, but at the same time they also show that without ideas or words Zen cannot convey itself to others. To grasp the exquisite meaning of Zen as expressing itself in words and yet not in them, is a great art which is to be attained only after so many vain attempts. Tokusho who after such an experience finally came to realise the mystery of Zen, did his best later to give vent to his view which he had gained under Hōgen. It was while he was residing at the Monastery of Prajñā that he had the following “mondo” and sermon.[6.43] When Tokusho came out into the Hall, a monk asked him, “I understand this was an ancient wise man’s saying: When a man sees Prajñā he is tied to it; when he sees it not he is also tied to it. Now I wish to know how it is that a man seeing Prajñā could be tied to it.” Said the master, “You tell me what it is that is seen by Prajñā.” Asked the monk, “When a man sees not Prajñā, how could he be tied to it?” “You tell me,” said the master, “if there is anything that is not seen by Prajñā.” The master then went on: “Prajñā seen is no Prajñā, nor is Prajñā unseen Prajñā: how could one apply the predicate, seen or unseen, to Prajñā? Therefore it is said of old that when one thing is missing the Dharmakāya is not complete; when one thing is superfluous the Dharmakāya is not complete: and again that when there is one thing to be asserted the Dharmakāya is not complete; when there is nothing to be asserted the Dharmakāya is not complete. This is indeed the essence of Prajñā.”
The “repetition” seen in this light may grow to be intelligible to a certain degree.
VII
As was explained in the preceding section, the principle underlying the various methods of instruction used by the Zen masters is to awaken a certain sense in the pupil’s own consciousness, by means of which he intuitively grasps the truth of Zen. Therefore, the masters always appeal to what we may designate “direct action” and are loathe to waste any lengthy discourse on the subject. Their dialogues are always pithy and apparently not controlled by rules of logic. The “repetitive” method as in other cases conclusively demonstrates that the so-called answering is not to explain but to point the way where Zen is to be intuited. To conceive the truth as something external which is to be perceived by a perceiving subject, is dualistic and appeals to the intellect for its understanding, but according to Zen we are living right in the truth, by the truth, from which we cannot be separated. Says Gensha (Hsüan-sha),[6.44] “We are here as if immersed in water head and shoulders underneath the great ocean, and yet how piteously we are extending our hands for water!” Therefore, when he was asked by a monk,[6.44] “What is my self?” he at once replied, “What would you do with a self?” When this is intellectually analysed, he means that when we begin to talk about self we immediately and inevitably establish the dualism of self and not-self, thus falling into the errors of intellectualism. We are in the water—this is the fact, and let us remain so, Zen would say, for when we begin to beg for water we put ourselves in an external relation to it and what has hitherto been our own will be taken away from us.
The following case may be interpreted in the same light: A monk came to Gensha and said,[6.44] “I understand you to say this that the whole universe is one transpicuous crystal; how do I get at the sense of it?” Said the master, “The whole universe is one transpicuous crystal, and what is the use of understanding it?” The day following the master himself asked the monk, “The whole universe is one transpicuous crystal, and how do you understand it?” The monk replied, “The whole universe is one transpicuous crystal, and what is the use of understanding it?” “I know,” said the master, “that you are living in the cave of demons.” While this looks another case of “Repetition,” there is something different in it, something more of intellection, so to speak.
Whatever this is, Zen never appeals to our reasoning faculty, but points directly at the very object one wants to have. While Gensha on a certain occasion was treating an army officer called Wei to tea, the latter asked, “What does it mean when they say that in spite of our having it everyday we do not know it?” Gensha without answering the question took up a piece of cake and offered it to him. After eating the cake, the officer asked the master again, who then remarked, “Only we do not know it even when we are using it everyday.”[6.44] This is evidently an object lesson. Another time a monk came to him and wanted to know how to enter upon the path of truth. Gensha asked, “Do you hear the murmuring of the stream?” “Yes, I do,” said the monk. “There is a way to enter,” was the master’s instruction.[6.44] Gensha’s method was thus to make the seeker of the truth directly realise within himself what it was, and not to make him merely the possessor of a second-hand knowledge. “Ein begriffener Gott ist kein Gott,” declares Terstegen.
It is thus no wonder that the Zen masters frequently make an exclamatory utterance[f131] in response to questions, instead of giving an intelligible answer. When words are used if at all intelligible we may feel that we can somehow find a clue to get at the meaning, but when an inarticulate utterance is given, we are quite at a loss how to deal with it, unless we are fortified with some previous knowledge such as I have at some length attempted to give to my readers.
Of all the Zen masters who used to give exclamatory utterance, the most noted ones are Ummon and Rinzai, the former for his “Kwan!” and the latter for his “Kwats!” At the end of one summer sojourn Suigan (Ts‘ui-yen) made the following remark[6.45]: “Since the beginning of this summer sojourn I have talked much; see if my eyebrows are still there.” This refers to the tradition that when a man makes false statements concerning the Dharma of Buddhism he will lose all his hair in the face. As Suigan gave many sermons during the summer for the edification of his pupils, while no amount of talk can ever explain what the truth is, his eye-brows and beard might perhaps by this time have altogether disappeared. This, as far as its literary meaning is concerned, is the idea of his remark whatever Zen may be concealed underneath. Hofuku (Pao-fu), one of the masters, said, “One who turns into a highwayman has a treacherous heart.” Chōkei (Ch‘ang-ch‘ing), another master, remarked, “How thickly they are growing!” Ummon, one of the greatest masters towards the end of the T‘ang dynasty, exclaimed, “Kwan!” Kwan 關 literally means the gate on a frontier pass where travellers and their baggage are inspected. In this case, however, the term does not mean anything of the sort, it is simply “Kwan!” an exclamatory utterance which does not allow any analytical or intellectual interpretation. Seccho, the original compiler of the Hekigan, comments on this, “He is like one who, besides losing his money, is incriminated,” while Hakuin has this to say, “Even an angry fist does not strike a smiling face.” Something like this is the only comment we can make on such an utterance as Ummon’s. When we try anything approaching a conceptual interpretation on the subject we shall be “ten thousand miles away beyond the clouds,” as the Chinese would say.
While Rinzai is regarded as the author of “Kwats!” 喝 (hê), we have an earlier record of it; for Baso, successor to Nangaku (Nan-yüeh), and an epoch-maker in the history of Zen, uttered “Kwats!” to his disciple, Hyakjo (Pai-chang), when the latter came up to the master for a second time to be instructed in Zen. This “Kwats!” is said to have deafened Hyakujo’s ear for the following three days. But it was principally due to Rinzai that this particular cry was most effectively and systematically made use of and later came to be one of the special features of the Rinzai Zen in distinction to the other schools. In fact the cry came to be so abused by his followers that he had to make the following remark[6.46]: “You are all so given up to learning my cry (hê), but I want to ask you this: Suppose one man comes out from the eastern hall and another from the western hall, and suppose both give out the ‘Kwats!’ simultaneously; and yet I say to you that subject and predicate are clearly discernible in this. But how will you discern them? If you are unable to discern them, you are forbidden hereafter to imitate my cry.”
Rinzai distinguishes four kinds of “Kwats!”[6.47] The first according to him, is like the sacred sword of Vajrarāja; the second is like the golden-haired lion squatting on the ground; the third is like the sounding rod or the grass used as a decoy; and the fourth is the one that does not at all function as a “Kwats!”
Rinzai once asked his disciple, Rakuho (Lê-p‘u),[6.48] “One man has been using a stick and another resorting to the “Kwats!” which of them do you think is the more intimate to the truth? Answered the disciple, “Neither of them!” “What is the most intimate then?” Rakuho cried out, “Kwats!” Whereupon Rinzai struck him. This swinging of a stick was the most favourite method of Tokusan and stands generally contrasted to the crying utterance of Rinzai; but here the stick is used by Rinzai and the latter’s speciality is taken up in a most telling manner by his disciple, Rakuho.
Besides these “skilful contrivances” (upāya-kauśalya) so far enumerated under seven headings, there are a few more “contrivances” though I am not going to be very exhaustive here on the subject.
One of them is “silence.” Vimalakīrti was silent when Mañjuśrī asked him as to the doctrine of non-duality, and his silence was later commented upon by a master as “deafening like thunder.” A monk asked Basho Yesei (Pa-chiao Hui-ch‘ing)[6.49] to show him the “original face” without the aid of any intermediary conception, and the master keeping his seat remained silent. When Shifuku (Tzŭ-fu)[6.50] was asked as to a word befitting the understanding of the inquirer, he did not utter a word, he simply kept silent. Bunki (Wên-hsi) of Koshu (Hang-chou)[6.51] was a disciple of Kyōzan (Yang-shan); he was asked by a monk, “What is the self?” but he remained silent. As the monk did not know what to make of it, he asked again, to which the master replied, “When the sky is clouded, the moon cannot shine out.” A monk asked Sozan (Ts‘ao-shan),[6.52] “How is the silence inexpressible to be revealed?” “I do not reveal it here.” “Where would you reveal it?” “At midnight last night,” said the master, “I lost three pennies by my bed.”
Sometimes the masters sit quiet “for some little while” 良久 (liang chiu) either in response to a question or when in the pulpit. This liang-chiu does not always merely indicate the passage of time, as we can see in the following cases: A monk came to Shuzan (Shou-shan) and asked,[6.53] “Please play me a tune on a stringless harp.” The master was quiet for some little while, and said, “Do you hear it?” “No, I do not hear it.” “Why,” said the master, “did you not ask louder?” A monk asked Hofuku (Pao-fu),[6.54] “I am told that when one wants to know the path of the uncreate, one should know the source of it. What is the source, sir?” Hofuku was silent for a while, and then asked his attendant, “What did the monk ask me now?” When that monk repeated the question, the master ejected him out, exclaiming, “I am not deaf!”
Next, we may mention the method of counter-questioning, wherein questions are not answered by plain statements but by counter-questionings. In Zen, generally speaking, a question is not a question in its ordinary sense, that is, it is not simply asked for information, and therefore it is natural that what ordinarily corresponds to an answer is not an answer at all. Some Zen authority enumerates eighteen different kinds of questions, against which we may distinguish eighteen corresponding answers. Thus a counter-question itself is in its way an illuminating answer. A monk requested Jimyo (Tzŭ-ming) to “set forth the idea of Dharma’s coming from the west,” and the master said, “When did you come?”[6.55] When Rasan Dokan (Lo-shan Tao-hsien) was asked, “Who is the master of the triple world?” he said, “Do you understand how to eat rice?”[6.56] Tenryu (T‘ien-lung), the teacher of Gutei, was hailed by a monk who asked him,[6.57] “How are we released from the triple world?” He retorted, “Where are you this very moment?” A monk asked Jōshu, “What would you say when a man is without an inch of cloth on him?” “What did you say he has not on him?” “An inch of cloth on him, sir.” “Very fine this, not to have an inch of cloth!” responded the master.[6.58]
When we go on like this, there may be no end to this way of treating the various “contrivances” devised by the Zen masters for the benefits of their truth-thirsty pupils. Let me conclude this section by quoting two more cases in which a kind of reasoning in a circle is employed, but from another point of view we may detect here a trace of absolute monism in which all differences are effaced. Whether the Zen masters agree with this view, however, remains to be seen; for while the absolute identity of meum et tuum is asserted, facts of individualisation are not ignored either. A monk asked Daizui (Tai-sui),[6.59] “What is my [pupil’s] Self?” “That is my [master’s] Self,” answered the master. “How is it that my Self is your Self?” The ultimate dictum was, “That is your Self.” To understand this in a logical fashion, put “ignorant,” or “confused” or “human” in place of “my [pupil’s] Self,” and in place of “your [master’s] Self” put “enlightened,” or “Buddha’s,’ or “divine,” and we may have a glimpse into what was going on in the mind of Daizui. But without his last remark, “That is your Self,” the whole affair may resolve into a form of pantheistic philosophy. In the case of Sansho Yenen (San-shêng Hui-jan) and Kyozan Yejaku (Yang-shan Hui-chi), the thought of Daizui is more concretely presented. Yejaku asked Yenen,[6.60] “What is your name?” and Yenen replied, “My name is Yejaku.” Yejaku protested, “Yejaku is my name.” Thereupon said Yenen, “My name is Yenen,” which brought out a hearty laugh from Yejaku. These dialogues remind one of the famous Hindu saying, “Tat tvam asi!” but the difference between this and “My name is Yejaku” is that between Vedanta philosophy and Zen Buddhism, or that between Indian idealism and Chinese realism or practicalness. The latter does not generalise, nor does it speculate on a higher plane which has no hold on life as we live it. According to the philosophy of the Kegon (Avatamsaka) school of Buddhism, there is a spiritual world where one particular object holds within itself all other particular objects merged, instead of all particular objects being absorbed in the Great All. Thus in this world it so happens that when you lift a bunch of flowers or point at a piece of brick, the whole world in its multitudinosity is seen reflected here. If so, the Zen masters may be said to be moving also in this mystic realm which reveals its secrets at the moment of supreme enlightenment (anuttara-samyak-saṁbodhi).
VIII
We now come to the most characteristic feature of Zen Buddhism, by which it is distinguished not only from all the other Buddhist schools, but from all forms of mysticism that are ever known to us. So far the truth of Zen has been expressed through words, articulate or otherwise, however enigmatic they may superficially appear; but now the masters appeal to a more direct method instead of verbal medium. In fact, the truth of Zen is the truth of life, and life means to live, to move, to act, not merely to reflect. Is it not the most natural thing for Zen, therefore, that its development should be towards acting or rather living its truth instead of demonstrating or illustrating it in words, that is to say, with ideas? In the actual living of life there is no logic, for life is superior to logic. We imagine logic influences life, but in reality man is not a rational creature so much as we make him out, of course he reasons, but he does not act according to the result of his reasoning pure and simple. There is something stronger than ratiocination. We may call it impulse, or instinct, or, more comprehensively, will. Where this will acts there is Zen, but if I am asked whether Zen is a philosophy of will I rather hesitate to give an affirmative answer. Zen is to be explained, if at all explained it should be, rather dynamically than statically. When I raise the hand thus, there is Zen. But when I assert that I have raised the hand, Zen is no more there. Nor is there any Zen when I assume the existence of somewhat that may be named will or anything else. Not that the assertion or assumption is wrong, but that the thing known as Zen is three thousand miles away as they say. An assertion is Zen only when it is in itself an act and does not refer to anything that is asserted in it. In the finger pointed at the moon there is no Zen, but when the pointing finger itself is considered, altogether independent of any external references, there is Zen.
Life delineates itself on the canvas called time; and time never repeats, once gone, forever gone; and so is an act, once done, it is never undone. Life is a sumiye-painting, which must be executed once and for all time and without hesitation, without intellection, and no corrections are permissible or possible. Life is not like an oil-painting which can be rubbed out and done over time and again until the artist is satisfied. With a sumiye-painting, any brush stroke painted over a second time results in a smudge; the life has left it. All corrections show when the ink dries. So is life. We can never retract what we have once committed to deeds, nay, what has once passed through consciousness can never be rubbed out. Zen therefore ought to be caught while the thing is going on, neither before nor after. It is an act of one instant. When Dharma was leaving China, as the legend has it, he asked his disciples what was their understanding of Zen, and one of them who happened to be a nun, replied, “It is like Ānanda’s looking into the kingdom of Akshobhya Buddha, it is seen once and has never been repeated.” This fleeting, unrepeatable, and ungraspable character of life is delineated graphically by Zen masters who have compared it to lightning or spark produced by the percussion of stones: 閃電光, 擊石火 (shan tien kuang, chi shih huo) is the phrase.[6.61]
The idea of direct method appealed to by the masters is to get hold of this fleeting life as it flees and not after it has flown. While it is fleeing, there is no time to recall memory or to build ideas. No reasoning avails here. Language may be used, but this has been associated too long with ideation, and has lost directness or being by itself. As soon as words are used, they express meaning, reasoning; they represent something not belonging to themselves; they have no direct connection with life, except being a faint echo or image of something that is no longer here. This is the reason why the masters often avoid such expressions or statements as are intelligible in any logical way. Their aim is to have the pupil’s attention concentrated in the thing itself which he wishes to grasp and not in anything that is in the remotest possible connection liable to disturb him. Therefore when we attempt to find meaning in dharanis or exclamations or a nonsensical string of sounds taken as such, we are far away from the truth of Zen. We must penetrate into the mind itself as the spring of life, from which all these words are produced. The swinging of a stick, the crying of a “Kwats!” or the kicking of a ball must be understood in this sense, that is, as the directest demonstration of life, no, even as life itself. The direct method is thus not always the violent assertion of life-force, but a gentle movement of the body, the responding to a call, the listening to a murmuring stream, or to a singing bird, or any of our most ordinary everyday assertions of life.
Reiun (Ling-yün)[6.62] was asked, “How were things before the appearance of the Buddha in the world?” He raised his hossu. “How were things after the appearance of the Buddha?” He again raised the hossu. This raising of the hossu was quite a favourite method with many masters to demonstrate the truth of Zen. As I stated elsewhere, the hossu and the staff were the religious insignias of the master, and it was natural that they would be in much display when the monks approached with questions. One day Ōbaku Kiun (Huang-po Hsi-yün)[6.63] ascended the pulpit, and as soon as monks were gathered, the master took up his staff and drove them all out. When they were about all out, he called them, and they turned their heads back. The master said, “The moon looks like a bow, less rain and more wind.” The staff was thus wielded effectively by the masters, but who would ever have thought of a cane being made an instrument of illustrating the most profound truth of religion?
Jōshu was the readiest master for pithy retorts and his “Sayings” (Goroku) is filled with them, but he was also an adept at the direct method. When he was in his pulpit one day, a monk came out of the rank and made bows to him. Without waiting, however, for further movements on the part of the monk, Jōshu folded his hands and a parting salutation was given. Hyakujo Isei’s (Pai-chang Wei-chêng)[6.64] way was somewhat different. He said to the monks, “You open the farm for me and I will talk to you about the great principle [of Zen].” When the monks finished attending to the farm and came back to the master to discourse on the great principle, he merely extended his open arms and said nothing.
A monk came to Yenkwan An,[6.65] the National Teacher, and wanted to know what was the original body of Vairochana Buddha. The Teacher told him to pass the pitcher, which he did. The Teacher then said, “Put it back where you got it.” The monk faithfully obeyed, but not being told what was the original body of the Buddha, he proposed the question once more, “Who is the Buddha?” Answered the master, “Long gone is he!” In this case the direct method was practised more by the monk himself under the direction of the master, but unfortunately the pupil’s spiritual condition was not ripe enough to grasp the meaning of his own “direct method,” and alas, let go “the old Buddha!” Something similar to this case may be found in the following one:
Sekiso (Shih-shuang)[6.66] asked Yenchi (Yüan-chih),[6.67] who was a disciple of Yakusan (Yüeh-shan), “If some one after your death asked me about the ultimate fact, what should I say to him?” The master gave no answer, but instead called up the boy-attendant who at once responded. He said, “Fill up the pitcher,” and remained quiet for some little while. He now asked Sekiso, “What did you ask me before?” Sekiso re-stated the question, whereupon the master rose from his seat and left the room.
As some Zen masters remarked, Zen is our “ordinary mindedness,” that is to say, there is in Zen nothing supernatural or unusual or highly speculative that transcends our everyday life. When you feel sleepy, you retire; when you are hungry, you eat, just as much as the fowls of the air and the lilies of the field, taking “no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on.” This is the spirit of Zen. Hence no specially didactic or dialectical instruction in the study of Zen except such as is given below by Dōgo.
Ryutan Sōshin (Lung-t‘an Sui-hsin)[6.68] was a disciple of Tenno Dōgo (Tao-wu). He served the master as one of his personal attendants. He was with him for some time when one day he said to the master: “Since I came to you, I have not at all been instructed in the study of mind.” Replied the master, “Ever since you came to me, I have always been pointing to you how to study mind.” “In what way, sir?” “When you brought me a cup of tea, did I not accept it? When you served me with food, did I not partake of it? When you made bows to me, did I not return them? When did I ever neglect in giving you instructions?” Ryutan kept his head hanging for some time, when the master told him, “If you want to see, see directly into it; but when you try to think about it, it is altogether missed.”
Dōgo Yenchi (Tao-wu Yüan-chih) and Ungan Donjo (Yün-yen Tan-shêng) were standing by the master Yakusan (Yüeh-shan) as attendants, when Yakusan remarked,[6.69] “Where our intellect cannot reach, I verily tell you to avoid talking about it; when you do, horns will grow on you. O Yenchi, what will you say to this?” Yenchi thereupon rose from his place and left the room. Ungan asked the master, “How is it, sir, that Brother Chi does not answer you?” “My back aches to-day,” said Yakusan, “You better go to Yenchi himself, for he understands.” Ungan came to his brother monk and inquired thus, “O Brother Senior, why did you not answer our master now?” “You better go back to the master himself and ask,” was all that poor Ungan could get out of his senior brother.
There was another favourite movement often practised by Zen masters, which was to call out to the questioner or somebody else. One case of this has already been given somewhere else in another connection. The following are the typical and classical ones. Chu, the National Teacher, called out to his attendant monk three times, to which the latter responded regularly. Said the Teacher, “I thought I was not fair to you, but it was you that were not fair to me.”[f132][6.70] This calling and responding took place also three times between Mayoku (Ma-ku) and Ryosui (Liang-sui), which at last made the latter exclaim: “O this stupid fellow!”[6.71]
This trick of calling out and responding was frequently practised as is seen in the following cases: A high government dignitary called upon Ungo Doyo (Yün-chü Tao-ying) and asked[6.72]: “I am told that the World-honoured One had a secret phrase and Mahākāśyapa did not keep it hidden; what was the secret phrase?” The master called out, “O honoured officer!” and the officer responded. “Do you understand?” demanded the master. “No, Reverend Sir!” was his natural answer. “If you do not understand, there is the secret phrase: if you understand, there is Mahākāśyapa in full revelation.”
Haikyu (P‘ai-hsiu)[6.73] was a local governor in Shinan (Hsin-an) before he was appointed a state-minister. He once visited a Buddhist monastery in his district. While going around in the premises of the monastery, he came across a fine fresco painting and asked the accompanying priests whose portrait this was. “He was one of the high priests,” they answered. The governor now turned towards them and questioned, “Here is his portrait, but where is the high priest himself?” They all did not know how to answer him. He then further asked if there were any Zen monks about here. They replied, “We have recently a new comer in this monastery, he does some menial work for us and looks very much like a Zen monk.” He was then brought in the presence of the governor who at once spoke to him, “I have one question in which I wish to be enlightened, but the gentlemen here grudge the answer. May I ask you to give me a word for them?” “I humbly wish you to ask,” politely requested the monk. The officer repeated the first question, whereupon the monk loudly and clearly called out, “O Haikyu!” Haikyu responded at once, “Here, sir!” “Where is the high priest now?” cross-questioned the monk. This opened the governor’s eye to the sense of the monk’s counter-question, in which he could now read the solution of his first query.
The case between Yisan (Wei-shan) and Kyōzan (Yang-shan) was more intellectual and to that extent more intelligible than this mere calling and responding. Kyōzan was the chief disciple of Yisan, and one of the peculiar features of this school was to demonstrate the truth of Zen concordantly both by the master and disciple. They once went out picking tea-leaves. The master said to Kyōzan,[6.74] “Picking tea-leaves all day, I hear only your voice and do not see your body; manifest your original body and let me see it.” Kyōzan shook the tea-plant. Said Yisan, “You have only got its function, you have not got the substance.” Kyōzan said, “Master, how with you then?” The master was quiet for a while whereupon the disciple said, “O master, you have got only the substance, you have not got the function.” “You will be spared of my twenty blows,” concluded the master. In Buddhist ontology three conceptions are distinguished, as was referred to previously; substance or body, appearance, and function or activity. “Body” or bhāva corresponds to the idea of mass or being, “appearance” (lakshaṇa) to that of form, and “function” (kṛitya) to that of force. Every reality is regarded by Buddhist philosophers as analysable into these three notions. Sometimes, however, the second conception, “appearance” is absorbed in that of “being,” or “body.” Without functioning no objects exist, but functioning cannot take place without something functioning. The two ideas, according to Buddhist philosophers, are thus inseparable for our understanding of the universe. But Yisan and Kyōzan were not metaphysicians and would not argue on the subject. The one shook the tree and the other stood still. We cannot say that there is Zen in this standing and shaking as we may interpret them philosophically, but we may glean something of Zen in their remarks on “body” and “function” together with their direct method.
So far the direct method has not been of any violent character as to involve a bodily injury or nervous shock, but the masters had no qualms if they thought necessary to shake the pupils roughly. Rinzai for one was noted for the directness and incisiveness of his dealings; the point of his sword cut through the heart of the opponent. The monk Jō (Ting)[6.75] was one of his disciples, and when he asked the master what the fundamental principle of Buddhism was, Rinzai came down from his straw chair, and taking hold of the monk slapped him with the palm of his hand, and let him go. Jō stood still without knowing what to make of the whole procedure when a by-standing monk blamed him for not bowing to the master. While doing so, Jō all of a sudden awoke to the truth of Zen. Later, when he was passing over a bridge, he happened to meet a party of three Buddhist scholars, one of whom asked Jō, “The river of Zen is deep, and its bottom must be sounded. What does this mean?” Jō, disciple of Rinzai, at once seized the questioner and was at the point of throwing him over the bridge, when his two friends interceded and asked Jō’s merciful treatment of the offender. Jō released the scholar, saying, “If not for the intercession of his friends I would at once let him sound the bottom of the river himself.” With these people Zen was no joke, no mere play of ideas, it was on the contrary a most serious thing on which they would stake their lives.
Rinzai was a disciple of Ōbaku (Huang-po), but while under the master he did not get any special instruction on Zen; for whenever he asked him as to the fundamental truth of Buddhism, he was struck by Ōbaku. But it was these blows that opened Rinzai’s eye to the ultimate truth of Zen and made him exclaim, “After all there is not much in the Buddhism of Ōbaku!”[6.76] In China and in Korea what little of Zen is left mostly belongs to the school of Rinzai. In Japan alone the Soto branch is flourishing as much as the Rinzai. The rigour and vitality of Zen Buddhism that is still present in the Rinzai school of Japan comes from the three blows of Ōbaku so mercifully dealt out to his poor disciple. There is in fact more truth in a blow or a kick than in the verbosity of logical discourse. At any rate the Zen masters were in dead earnest whenever the demonstration of Zen was demanded. See the following instance.
When Tō-Impo (Têng Yin-fêng)[6.77] was pushing a cart, he happened to see his master Baso stretching his legs a little too far out in the roadway. He said, “Will you please draw your legs in?” Replied the master, “A thing once stretched out will never be contracted.” “If so,” said Tō, “a thing once pushed will never be retracted.” His cart went right over the master’s legs which were thus hurt. Later Baso went up to the Preaching Hall where he carried an axe and said to the monks gathered, “Let the one who wounded the old master’s legs awhile ago come out of the congregation.” Tō came forth and stretched his neck ready to receive the axe, but the master instead of chopping the disciple’s head off, quietly set the axe down.
Tō-Impo was ready to give up his life to re-assert the truth of his deed, through which the master got hurt. Mimicry or simulation was rampant everywhere, and therefore Baso wanted to ascertain the genuineness of Tō’s understanding of Zen. When the thing is at stake, the masters do not hesitate to sacrifice anything. In the case of Nansen, a kitten was done away with: Kyōzan broke a mirror into pieces; a woman follower of Zen burned up a whole house; and another woman threw her baby into a river. This latter was an extreme case, and perhaps the only one of the kind ever recorded in the history of Zen. As to minor cases such as mentioned above, they are plentiful and considered almost matters of course with Zen masters.
IX
While I have not attempted to be very exhaustive in describing all the different methods of demonstration or rather realisation of the truth of Zen resorted to by the masters of various schools, the statements so far made in regard to them, may suffice to give us at least a glimpse into some of the peculiar features of Zen Buddhism. Whatever explanations may be given by critics or scholars to the philosophy of Zen, we must first of all acquire a new point of view of looking at things, which is altogether beyond our ordinary sphere of consciousness. Rather, this new viewpoint is gained when we reach the ultimate limits of our understanding, within which we think we are always bound and unable to break through. Most people stop at these limits and are easily persuaded that they cannot go any further. But there are some whose mental vision is able to penetrate this veil of contrasts and contradictions. They gain it abruptly. They beat the wall in utter despair, and lo, it unexpectedly gives way and there opens an entirely new world. Things hitherto regarded as prosaic and ordinary and even binding are now arranged in quite a novel scheme. The old world of the senses has vanished, and something entirely new has come to take its place. We seem to be in the same objective surroundings, but subjectively we are rejuvenated, we are born again.
Wu Tao-tzŭ or Godoshi was one of the greatest painters of China, and lived in the reign of the Emperor Hsüan-tsung, of the T‘ang dynasty. His last painting, according to legend, was a landscape commissioned by the Emperor for one of the walls of his palace. The artist concealed the complete work with a curtain till the Emperor’s arrival, then drawing it aside exposed his vast picture. The Emperor gazed with admiration on a marvellous scene: forests, and great mountains, and clouds in immense distances of sky, and men upon the hills, and birds in flight. “Look,” said the painter, “in the cave at the foot of this mountain dwells a spirit.” He clapped his hands; the door at the cave’s entrance flew open. “The interior is beautiful beyond words,” he continued, “permit me to show the way.” So saying he passed within; the gate closed after him; and before the astonished Emperor could speak or move, all had faded to white wall before his eyes, with not a trace of the artist’s brush remaining. Wu Tao-tzŭ was seen no more.
The artist has disappeared, and the whole scene has been wiped out; but from this nothingness there arises a new spiritual world, abiding in which the Zen masters perform all kinds of antics, assert all kinds of absurdities, and yet they are in perfect accord with the nature of things in which a world moves on stripped of all its falsehoods, conventions, simulations, and intellectual obliquities. Unless one gets into this world of realities, the truth of Zen will be eternally a sealed book. This is what I mean by acquiring a new point of view independent of logic and discursive understanding.
Emerson expresses the same view in his own characteristic manner: “Foremost among these activities (that is, mathematical combination, great power of abstraction, the transmutings of the imagination, even versatility, and concentration), are the somersaults, spells, and resurrections, wrought by the imagination. When this wakes, a man seems to multiply ten times or a thousand times his force. It opens the delicious sense of indeterminate size, and inspires an audacious mental habit. We are as elastic as the gas of gunpowder, and a sentence in a book, or a word dropped in conversation, sets free our fancy, and instantly our heads are bathed with galaxies, and our feet tread the floor of the pit. And this benefit is real, because we are entitled to these enlargements, and, once having passed the bounds, shall never again be quite the miserable pedants we were.”
Here is a good illustration of the difference between a “miserable pedant” and one who has “passed the bounds.” There was a monk called Gensoku (Hsüan-tsê)[6.78] who was one of the chief officials of the monastery under the Zen master Hōgen (Fa-yen), of the early tenth century. He never came to the master to make inquiries about Zen; so the master one day asked him why he did not come. The chief official answered: “When I was under Seiho (Ch‘ing-fêng) I got an idea as to the truth of Zen.” “What is your understanding then?” demanded the master. “When I asked my master, who was the Buddha, he said, Ping-ting T‘ung-tsŭ comes for fire.” “It is a fine answer,” said Hōgen, “but probably you misunderstand it. Let me see how you take the meaning of it.” “Well,” explained the official, “Ping-ting is the god of fire; when he himself comes for fire, it is like myself, who, being a Buddha from the very beginning, wants to know who the Buddha is. No questioning is then needed as I am already the Buddha himself.” “There!” exclaimed the master, “Just as I thought! You are completely off.” Soku, the chief official, got highly offended because his view was not countenanced and left the monastery. Hōgen said, “If he comes back he may be saved; if not, he is lost.” Soku after going some distance reflected that a master of five hundred monks as Hōgen was would not chide him without cause, and returned to the old master and expressed his desire to be instructed in Zen. Hōgen said, “You ask me and I will answer.” “Who is the Buddha?”—the question came from the lips of the now penitent monk. “Ping-ting T‘ung-tzŭ comes for fire.” This made his eyes open to the truth of Zen quite different from what he formerly understood of it. He was now no more a second-hand “pedant” but a living creative soul. I need not repeat that Zen refuses to be explained but that it is to be lived. Without this, all talk is nothing but an idea, woefully inane and miserably unsatisfactory.
Below is another story illustrating the peculiarity of Zen understanding as distinguished from our ordinary intellectual understandings which are based on ideas and representations. The same phrase is repeated here as in the preceding case, and as far as its literal meaning goes, we have no reason to suppose its producing different effects on the mind of the recipient. But as I said elsewhere Zen is the opening of one’s own inner consciousness occasioned by some external incidental happening which may be of purely physical nature but may invoke some mental operation. This opening is therefore something, we as outsiders not belonging to the inner life of the individual concerned, have no means to judge beforehand, we know only when it is opened; but the masters seem to know when this opening is going to take place and how it is to be brought about from their own experience. Students of the psychology of Zen will here find an interesting problem to investigate.
Suigan Kashin (Ts‘ui-yen K‘ê-chên)[6.79] was a disciple of Zimyo (Tz‘u-ming), 986–1040, who was one of the greatest Sung masters and under whom the Rinzai school of Zen was divided into two branches, Woryu (Huang-lung) and Yogi (Yang-ch‘i).[6.80] Kashin was quite proud of being one of the disciples of the master, he was not yet really a master himself, but he thought he was. When he had a talk with another of Zimyo’s disciples, he was found out and laughed at. When they were having a walk together one day, they discussed Zen. His friend picked up a piece of a broken tile and putting it on a flat rock, said, “If you can say a word at this juncture, I will grant your really being Zimyo’s disciple.” Kashin wavered, looked this way and that, trying to make some answer. His friend was impatient, who broke out, “Hesitating and wavering, you have not yet penetrated through illusion, you have never yet even dreamt as to what the true insight of Zen is.” Kashin was thoroughly ashamed of himself. He at once returned to the master who severely reproached him, saying that he came before the termination of the summer session, which was against the regulations. Full of tears, he explained how he was taken to task by his fellow-monk and that it was the reason why he was here even against the monastery rules. The master abruptly asked him: “What is the fundamental principle of Buddhism?” Replied Kashin,
“No clouds are gathering over the mountain peaks,
And how serenely the moon is reflected on the waves!”
The master’s eyes flashed with indignation, and he thundered, “Shame on you! To have such a view for an old seasoned man like you! How can you expect to be delivered from birth-and-death?” Kashin earnestly implored to be instructed. Said the master, “You ask me.” Thereupon he repeated the master’s first question, “What is the fundamental principle of Buddhism?” The master roared,
“No clouds are gathering over the mountain peaks,
And how serenely the moon is reflected on the waves!”
This opened Kashin’s eye, and another man was he after that.
Let me conclude with a sermon from Goso (Wu-tsu), of whom mention has already been made:
If people ask me what Zen is like, I will say that it is like learning the art of burglary. The son of a burglar saw his father growing older and thought, “If he is unable to carry out his profession, who will be the bread-winner of this family, except myself? I must learn the trade.” He intimated the idea to his father, who approved of it. One night the father took the son to a big house, broke through the fence, entered the house, and opening one of the large chests, told the son to go in and pick out the clothings. As soon as he got into it, the lid was dropped and the lock securely applied. The father now came out to the courtyard, and loudly knocking at the door woke up the whole family, whereas he himself quietly slipped away from the former hole in the fence. The residents got excited and lighted candles, but found that the burglars had already gone. The son who remained all the time in the chest securely confined thought of his cruel father. He was greatly mortified, when a fine idea flashed upon him. He made a noise which sounded like the gnawing of a rat. The family told the maid to take a candle and examine the chest. When the lid was unlocked, out came the prisoner, who blew out the light, pushed away the maid, and fled. The people ran after him. Noticing a well by the road, he picked up a large stone and threw it into the water. The pursuers all gathered around the well trying to find the burglar drowning himself in the dark hole. In the meantime he was safely back in his father’s house. He blamed him very much for his narrow escape. Said the father, “Be not offended, my son. Just tell me how you got off.” When the son told him all about his adventures, the father remarked, “There you are, you have learned the art!”