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.