Download pdf - Zen Writes

Zen Writes

Page 1 of 35

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2014.All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of amonograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber: MINITEX;date: 01 November 2014

UniversityPressScholarshipOnline

OxfordScholarshipOnline

ZenSkin,ZenMarrow:WilltheRealZenBuddhismPleaseStandUp?StevenHeine

Printpublicationdate:2008PrintISBN-13:9780195326772PublishedtoOxfordScholarshipOnline:January2008DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195326772.001.0001

ZenWrites

FunandGameswithWordsandLetters

StevenHeine(ContributorWebpage)

DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195326772.003.0002

AbstractandKeywords

ThefirstissuediscussedinChapterTwoisineffabilityversusspeech,whichconcernstheroleoflanguageanddiscourseinatraditionthathasproducedvoluminoustextsdespiteanemphasisonbeingaspecialtransmissionwithoutrelianceonwordsandletters.ThischapterconsidersthequestionofwhetherZenliteratureisprimarilyusedasaheuristicdevice,asclaimedbythetraditionalview,orrepresentssomekindofgibberish,aschargedbycriticalBuddhism'sharshestskeptics,bycomparingthewordplayandallusionsinZencommentariestothe“nonsense”writinginLewisCarroll'sAliceinWonderlandandthefree‐floatingsurrealismofT.S.Eliot'sTheWasteland.Byfocusingonseveralspecifickōancaserecords,thechapterarguesthatZenliteratureistheproductofcarefullyconstructednarratives.Thenarrativesarenotnonsenseintheconventional

Zen Writes

Page 2 of 35


useoftheterm,butshowtheroleofbizarreoroutrageouspersonalinteractionsbetweenmastersanddisciplesthatestablishthevalueofradicalanti‐structuralbehaviorwithintheotherwiseconservativesettingofmonasticinstitutionalstructure.

Keywords:specialtransmission,Kōan,nonsense,narrative,Zenliterature

WhatDoWeHearatZenTemples?WhatshouldweexpecttohearataZentemple?GiventheemphasisonZenasaspecialtransmissionoutsidethescriptures,withoutrelianceonwordsandletters,perhapswewouldhearthesoundsofsilenceasin,forexample,themurmurofrustlingleavesorwhisperingpines,thehushoffallingsnow,orthegurgleofrushingstreamsthatareconsideredtoevokethevoiceofSakyamuni.1Inadditiontothesenaturalresonances,templelifewouldencompassnonverbalsoundsgeneratedbymonks,suchassweepingfloors,cooking,anddoingotherchores;theritualringingofthetemplebellatkeyintervalsduringthedailyroundofactivities;andrecitingorchanting(thoughnotnecessarilydeliveringexegesison)thesutras.ButwhathappenswhenitcomestolightthatinZentherehasalwaysbeenalargeandfundamentalroleforverbalcommunicationandthat,indeed,Zenmastershaveproducedatremendousvolumeofwritingsthatoriginallywerebasedonoralteachings(whiletheclaimforthepriorityoforalityhasitselfbeenquestioned)?DoesthispointtoabasiccontradictionorhypocrisyinZen,orwouldtheprevalenceofliteraryproductionmeanthatourunderstandingofwhatconstitutesZentransmissioninrelationtooralandwrittendiscoursemustbereconfigured?

Themaincontroversyregardingtheissueofwritesinvolvesthevalueofvarioussortsofliterarypursuitsinconnectionwiththe(p.38) aimsofreligiouspractice,withthetraditionalZennarrative(TZN)emphasizingtheroleofineffabilityandgoingbeyondlanguage,whereashistoricalandculturalcriticism(HCC)stressesthatexpressionandspeechhavebeencentraltotheZenapproach.Ithasbeensaidthatnobodywritesortalksmoreabouttheneedtorefrainanddesistfromwritingortalkingthanmystics.Inadvocatingthepathofsilenceaskeytorealizinganultimatelyinteriorandinexpressibletruth,theyproduce,oftenatanacceleratedorevenfeverishpace,voluminoustextsfilledwithpoeticandprosecompositions,aswellastherecordsoforaldiscourse.2Aremysticsviolatingtheirsacredprinciples?Isthisissueaproductofsomebasicconfusionorinconsistencyinthemysticalviewpoint?Or,shouldweinsteadfocusonthepositiveside,thatis,theeloquenceofmysticalliteraturethatisverymuchcelebrated,rangingfromtheexaltedverseoftheSongofSongsandthecreativityoftheSufiandTaoistpoetictraditionstothemetaphysicalmusingsofneo‐Platonic,Kabbalistic,andAdvaitaVedanticthinkers.

AccordingtoTZN,theZenoutlookisconsistent,andthroughdevicessuchastheMukōanandtheimageofamasterrippingthesutras,ithelpstobringtoaculminationabasictrendinBuddhistthoughttowardagravesuspicionandtranscendenceofwords.ThisisindicatedintheBuddha'srefusaltorespondtoquestionsabouttheafterlifeoreternitythat“tendnottoedification,”theMadhyamikarefutationofpartialviewpoints(e.g.,Chi‐tsang's“thedenialofallfalseviewsisthecorrectview”),andtheVimalakirtiSutra'shighlightingthesignificanceof“nowordsaboutnowords.”Zenalsoborrowsheavily

Zen Writes

Page 3 of 35


fromTaoistcritiquesofthelimitationsofconventionallanguageandlogic,asinLao‐tzu'sopeningline,“TheTaothatcanbetalkedaboutisnottherealTao,”orChuang‐tzu'semphasison“forgetting”ordinarypatternsofthoughtinordertoachieveahigherlevelofspiritualrealization.

TheZenapproachtoreticencewasperhapsgivenitsfirstforcefulassertionintheearlytransmissionofthelamptextfromaround710,theChuanfa‐paochi(J.Denhōbōki),whichargues,“Thistranscendentenlightenmentistransmittedbythemind[inaprocessthat]cannotbedescribed.Whatspokenorwrittenwordscouldpossiblyapply?”3ThisoutlookisextendedbyLin‐chi'sproclamationthathe“discarded”allthetextshehadstudiedafterhaving“realizedthattheyweremedicineforcuringillnessthatotherwisedisplayed[one‐sided]opinions,”4andbysimilarexamplesofdisdainforthewrittenwordinZensayingsandanecdotesfartoonumeroustomention.However,Zenisperhapsbestknownnotsomuchforthenegationofspeech,whichwouldrepresentanextremeview,butforinventingacreativenewstyleofexpressionthatuseslanguageinunusualandingeniousfashionstosurpassarelianceoneverydaywordsandletters.

(p.39) Zen“encounterdialogues”(C.chi‐yüanwen‐ta,J.kien‐mondō)andkōansdemonstrateradicalirreverenceandiconoclasminevoking“extraordinarywordsandstrangedeeds”(kigenkikō),aphraseusedtocharacterizetheT'angdynastyHung‐chouschool,whichincludessuchluminariesasMa‐tsu,thefounder,anddisciplesPai‐chang,Huang‐po,andLin‐chi.Inthisstyle,paradox,irony,nonsequitur,andabsurditymingledwithsarcasticput‐downsanddevastatingone‐upmanshiparelinkedtoextremephysicalgesturesandbodylanguage,includinggruntsandshouts,orstrikingandslapping,aswaysofmovingbeyondconventionalspeech.Moreover,Tung‐shanShou‐ch'u,adiscipleofYün‐men,makesthedistinctionbetweenlivingwords,whichsurpassreason,anddeadwords,whicharelimitedinthattheyreflectarelianceonlogicalthinkingthatresultsin“speakingalldaylongwithouthavingsaidathing.”ForTZN,livingwordshaveusefulnessinthattheyaredeployedtoexposethefutilityofandtobringtoanendtheuseofdeadwords,orasapoisontocounteractpoisonorasanexampleoffightingfirewithfire.

TheHCCpositionquestionswhatitseesasTZN'stendencytooveremphasizesilenceastheexclusiverationaleforZendiscourse.HCChighlightshowawidevarietyofconditioningfactorscontributedtothecreationofthevoluminousbodyofZenwritingsduringtheclassicalperiodsoftheT'angandSungdynastiesinChinaandtotheestablishmentofZeninmedievalJapan.HCCpointsoutthatthehistoricalstudyofZenhasbeeninfectedbythepresuppositionsofsectarianadvocatesandhasbuiltupaseriesofstereotypesandclichésthatmustbedefeatedbeforegenuineaccesstothetraditioncanbelaunched.Forexample,WilliamBodifordarguesthatsomeSōtōsectscholarshavedonean“injustice”inapplyingaviewthatwasgeneratedintheTokugawaera,whenthesectwasgenerallyopposedtotheuseofkōans,incontrasttotheRinzaiZenapproachintheKamakuraandMuromachieras,forwhichnothing,heargues,couldbefurtherfromthetruth.MedievalSōtōmastersdevelopedmanykindsoforalandwrittencommentariesthathavecometobeknowncollectivelyasshōmonoliterature,whichwasforthemostpartneglectedorsuppresseduntilrecentstudiesreversedthistrend.5

Zen Writes

Page 4 of 35


HCCfurtherunderminesTZNassumptionsbyshowingthatmanyofthenotionswithwhichZenismostcloselyassociatedandwhichareattributedtotheformativedaysofthetradition,especiallytheso‐calledradicaliconoclasmoftheearlypatriarchsandtheHung‐choulineage,werelikelySunginventionsappliedretrospectively.Thesesectarianassumptionshavenowbecomedeeplyingrainedasakindofmodernscholasticorthodoxy,sothatitisadifficultchallengetodislodgeanddisruptthem.Thisisanunfortunateironyforatraditionseeminglyhell‐bentonoverturningmisguidedpresuppositionsofallsorts,butperhapsitisacaseofself‐criticismbeingdelayedordeflectedor,(p.40) toputitmorecrudely,ofareligiousgroupthatiscapableofdishingoutcriticismbutnottakingit(i.e.,self‐reflection).

ItisnowclearthatthekōanaboutMahakasyapa'sreceivingtheflowerafterSakyamuni'swordlesssermon,aswellassloganslike“specialtransmissionoutsidetheteaching”and“norelianceonwordsandletters”—originallyseparateitemsthatcametobelinkedinafamousZenmottoattributedtoBodhidharma—werecreatedintheSungdynasty.6Firstmakingtheirappearanceineleventh‐centurytransmissionsofthelamptexts,includingtheChing‐techuan‐tenglu(1004)andtheT'ien‐shengkuang‐tenglu(1036),theserhetoricaldevicesweredesignedtosupporttheautonomousidentityofZeninaneraofcompetitionwithneo‐Confucianismandarenottoberegardedasaccurateexpressionsoftheperiodtheyaresaidtorepresent.7AcloseexaminationofsourcesrevealsthatT'angmasterswithareputationforirreverenceandblasphemywereoftenquiteconservativeintheirapproachtodoctrinebyciting(ratherthanrejecting)Mahayanasutrasinsupportofteachingsthatwerenotsodistinctfrom,andwereactuallyverymuchinaccordwith,contemporaryBuddhistschools.8

Deconstructingfromahistoricalstandpointmanyofthedeep‐seatedmisunderstandingshasledtotwoverydifferentculturalcriticalevaluationsregardingtheaimsandsignificanceofZenwritings.OpinionisdividedamongHCCcriticsabouttheimpactofthisdeconstructionandwhether,underneaththeZenloveofparadoxandabsurdityinanendlessseriesofquixotic,enigmaticutterances—regardlessofwhentheywerecomposed—therelieseitheranemptyshellofdiscoursethatmakesnosenseoracreativeformofnonsensethatrepresentsahigherlevelofcommunication.OnewingofHCC,whichcanbereferredtoasthe“dissolutionthesis,”suggeststhatwhatgetsrevealedisahopelessinconsistencyandakindofrhetoricalcover‐upforatraditiondevoidofmeaning.TheviewsofKoestlerandMishimadiscussedinchapter1arenotaloneinquestioningthevalidityofZenwrites.Inthischapter,IargueagainstthedissolutionthesisviewofZenasmeaningless,idlewordgamesandgibberishbypointingintwodirections,thatis,toTaoistrootsandtocomparisonswithvariousmodesofmodernWesternliteratureandthought.IbrieflyconsiderCarroll'sAliceinWonderlandandT.S.Eliot'sTheWasteLand.9

ThischapterarguesforthevalidityoftheotherwingofHCC,whichcanbereferredtoasthe“realizationthesis,”basedontheviewthatZenwritingsarefullyexpressiveofspiritualattainment,ratherthanmerelyapreludetotheabandonmentoflanguage.RecentliterarycriticalstudiesofZentexts,insomecasesfollowingtheleadofbiblical

Zen Writes

Page 5 of 35


criticism,haveanalyzedtherichnessandvarietyofstyles.Inthisapproach,clarifyinghistoricaltrendsopensup(p.41) diverseandcomplexaspectsofliteraryproduction,sothattherealtargetofcriticismisnotZenitself,asinthecaseofthedissolutionthesis,butTZN'sunfortunateone‐size‐fits‐allapproach,forwhichstrainedclaimsofaspecialqualityactuallyleavethegenuinedistinctivenessofthetraditionsomewhatconcealed.

ForTZN,theemphasisonsilenceconveyedinnumerousslogansandkōansistheessenceormarrow,whiletheskin,flesh,andbonesarerepresentedbythedifferentkindsofspeakingandwritingthatpointdeliberatelyyetevocativelybeyondwordsandletters.ButforHCC,thisrelationisreversed,sothatthemarrowisthevarietyandvariabilityofexpressions,withsilenceasoneamongseveralpossibletechniquesthatareconstitutedonmoresuperficiallevels.Yet,TZNandtherealizationthesisofHCCconcurinafocusonthecreativeingenuityevidentinthevaststorehousesofZenliteratureattributedtoeccentric,blasphemous,andirreverentpatriarchs.Kōans,whichareenigmaticdialoguesculledfromlongertransmissionsofthelamptexts,becamethesubjectinthemajorcollectionsofextensive,multilayeredproseandversecommentariescontainingphilosophicalandbiographicalelementsrepletewithcomplexwordplayandallusions.AccordingtoHeinrichDumoulin'sassessmentoftheprominentPi‐yenlu(J.Hekiganroku),orBlueCliffRecord,kōancollectioncompiledinthetwelfthcentury,“Theselectionofonehundredcasesisexquisite.Intherichvarietyoftheircontentandexpressionthe[kōancases]presenttheessenceofZen,”makingthistextrankas“oneoftheforemostexamplesofreligiousworldliterature.”10

However,IwillarguethatthemainstreamoftheHCCrealizationthesisalsofallsshortinfailingtorecognizethatacrucialcomponentofkōanliteratureisitsfocusonmonasticritualism.Byexaminingseveralkōanrecords,especially“Te‐shanCarriesHisBowl,”whichisincludedintheWu‐menkuan(case13)andTsung‐junglu(case55,calledthere“Hsüeh‐feng,theRiceCook”)collections,thischaptershowsthatZencarefullyconstructsnarrativesabouttheroleofinterpersonalrelationsandinteractionsbetweenmastersanddisciplesorrivalsinthesettingofmonasticinstitutionalstructures.11Themonasticsetting—andtheintriguesandconteststakingplacetherein—isnotonlythelocation,butalsotheritualandconceptualbasisformuchofthediscourseinawaythatlinksthematterofZenwritestoZenrites.

Ofthethreemaintopicstreatedinthisbook,theareaofwritesisperhapstheleastcontroversialinthatbothTZNandamajorwingofHCCaretoalargeextentinaccord.However,byinterpretingkōanliteratureasbeingbasedprimarilyonthemonasticelement,itispossibletoshowalinkbetweenwritesandthetopicofrightswherebyagreaterdegreeofdiscordbecomesevident.InZendialogicalexchanges,masterstestthelimitsofthesocialstructure(p.42) withdisplaysofantistructuralbehavior,whicharedeliberatelyeccentricandtransgressive,suchascuttingofffingersorlimbs,jumpingoffpoles,turningoverdinnertables,orshouting,striking,orslapping.Thisradicalbehavior,evenifanexaggeratedimageinZenwritesratherthanarecordofactualdeeds,leavesthedooropentothecriticismthatZenritesareantinomianandthereforedeficientwithregardtothematterofZenrights.

Zen Writes

Page 6 of 35


Zen'sShifttotheDharmaHallThedebateconcerningineffabilityversusspeech,ortheroleoflanguageanddiscourseinatraditionthathasproducedvoluminoustextsdespiteanemphasisonbeingasilenttransmissionindependentofwordsandletters,needstobeorientedintermsoftheoriginsandhistoricalcontextforthearticulationofZenteachings.Asindicatedinchapter1,oneofthemainideasoftheCh'an‐menkuei‐shih(CMK),thefirstZenmonasticcodeattributedtoPai‐chang,isthataspirituallyinsightfulandmorallysuperiorabbotbecomesthecenterofreligiouslifeasthelivingrepresentativeoftheBuddha.Thus,thedevelopmentofZenwritesisdirectlylinkedtotheascendancyandauthority,thecharismaandwisdomoftheabbotasasubstituteorreplacementforSakyamuni,andtohismannerandcontentofexpression,orthewho,when,where,andwhatofhowhespokeandwrote.

AsGriffithFoulknotes,“Ineffect,ZenpatriarchswereBuddhas.”Furthermore,whereastheteachersinotherBuddhistschoolsatthetimehadonlysecondhand,hearsayknowledgeofawakening,Zenmasters“derivedtheirspiritualauthorityfromadirectexperienceoftheBuddha‐mind.”Therefore,“theirwordsanddeeds[ofeachgenerationoflivingbuddhas]wereatleastequivalenttothesutras,whichrecordedthewordsanddeedsofSakyamuniandtheotherIndianBuddhas,andperhapsevensuperiorinthattheyweretherecordsofnativeChineseBuddhas.”12

Severalwell‐knownliteraryconventionsquicklyemanatedfromthedistinguishedmasters,includingrefinedpoetrycommemoratingtransmissionanddeathexperiencesandthedialogicalstyleofinteraction,includingseeminglyabsurd,nonsensicalremarksconsideredrevelatoryoftheenlightenedstatebeyondreason.13Thesediscourseswererecordedinthehagiographicaltransmissionofthelamptexts.Fromthatsetofmaterials,arrangedaccordingtothesequenceofmastersinalineage,therewerecreatedtwoadditionalgenreswithdifferentarrangements:recordedsayingstexts,whichcontainedallrelevantbiographicalanecdotesandutterancesofanindividualmaster,(p.43) andkōancollections,orextensiveproseandversecommentariesonprominentencounterdialogues.

TheCMKalsospecifiesthataprimaryrequirementfortheabbotisthedeliveryofpublicsermons,andfurthermore,thisinnovationisrelatedtothefunctionofthetemplehalls:

TheentireassemblymeetsintheDharmaHalltwiceadayformorningandeveningconvocations.Ontheseoccasions,theAbbotentersthehall[C.shang‐t'ang,J.jōdō]andascends[to]thehighseat.Theheadmonksandrank‐and‐filediscipleslineuponeithersideofthehalltolistenattentivelytotheAbbot'ssermon.ThesermonisfollowedbyanopportunityforastimulatingdebateabouttheessentialmeaningofZendoctrines,whichdiscloseshowonemustliveinaccordwiththeDharma.

Thispassageindicatesthattwice‐dailysermonsweredeliveredbytheabbotwho“entersthehall”asademonstrationofhiswisdomandguidance.DaleWrightremarksofT'angmasterHuang‐po,“LikeotherZenmastersofhistime,hewasperhapsfirstandforemostaskilledspeaker,bothonthelecturedaisandinpersonalencounter.”14Wrightalso

Zen Writes

Page 7 of 35


pointsoutthatZen“priestsofthistimeeithergainedfame,orfailedtodoso,primarilybasedupontheirmasteryinthesedomains.ThemasterspokefromthepositionintheDharmaHalltraditionallygiventotheimageoftheBuddhaand,therefore,spokeasaninstantiationofenlightenment.”15

Thestyleofsermonknownas“enteringthehall”becamesynonymouswiththelocationoftheDharmaHall,whichwasgenerallyatwo‐storystructurethathadanauraofgrandeurmuchliketheBuddhaHall,whichitwassupposedtoreplace.OneoftheinnovationsofZenwasthatthisbuildingbecamethecentralsiteonthecompound:

DharmahallsinSungZenmonasterieswerelargestructureswitharchitecturalfeaturesandappointmentsidenticaltoBuddhahalls,withtheexceptionthattheirSumerualtarshadnoBuddhaimagesonthem.Instead,dharmahallaltarsborehighlectureseatsthatwereusedbyabbotsforpreachingthedharma,engagingtheassembledmonksandlaityindebate,andotherservices.TheassociationofanabbotwiththeBuddhasinthiscontextwasunmistakable.16

TheCMKmentionsanotherkeyaspectofthestyleofdiscourseprovidedbyZenmasters,whichisalsoassociatedwithoneofthetemplehalls:“Monksmayrequestorbeinvitedforpersonalinterviewsorinstructionbyentering(p.44) intotheAbbot'sQuarters.Otherwise,eachdiscipleisprimarilyresponsibleforregulatinghisowndiligenceorindolence[inmakinganeffortatmeditation],whetherheisofseniororjuniorstatus.”Accordingtothispassage,thepracticeofmeditationislessimportant—oratleastlessorganizedandregularized—thantheindividual,privateteachingsprovidedbytheabbottomotivateddisciples.Theproceduresrequiredforrequestingpermissionto“enterthe[abbot's]room”(C.ju‐shih,J.nyūshitsu)areprescribedinlatertexts,especiallytheCh'an‐yüanch'ing‐kuei,whichmentionshowthemasteristogiveinformalprivatesermonsknownas“smallconvocation[s]”(C.hsiao‐ts'an,J.shōsan)inhisroom,whicharedistinguishedfromtheformalpublicsermonsprovidedintheDharmaHall,whichareknownas“largeconvocation[s]”(C.ta‐ts'an,J.daisan).However,exactrequirementsandmethodsofimplementationprobablyvariedwiththeparticulartempleanditsabbot.

Althoughtechnicallynotapartoftheseven‐halltemplelayout,accordingtotheGozanjissatsuzu(GJZ),theAbbot'sQuarterswasgenerallyofgreatimportanceintheritualsofthecompound,anditwasusuallysituatedabove(north)andalittletotheleft(western)sideoftheDharmaHall,hence,offcenterfromthecentralaxis.Thechamberisacentralareaofthecompoundwherethemastergivesoralsermonsandotherinstructions,someofwhichhavebeentranscribedandmadepartoftheBuddhistcanon.OneofthemainreasonsthatDōgenadmiredhisChinesementoratMt.T'ien‐t'ungwasthatfrequentlyJu‐chingspontaneouslyinitiatedtheentering‐the‐roomceremony,sometimesevenbywakinguptheassemblyduringthenighttocallaspecialsession.17

ForthemostpartinChina,however,theinformalsermonsofZenmasterswerenotrecorded,whereascarefulrecordswerekeptoftheformalsermons,althoughtheserecordsdonotgenerallycontaintheopendiscussionsandsometimesfreewheeling

Zen Writes

Page 8 of 35


debatesheldduringthepublicsessions.Perhapsinspiredbyhisteacher,Dōgencollectedhisowninformalsermons,someofwhichwerelaterheavilyedited,intheShōbōgenzō,whichisoneofthefewtextsinthehistoryofthetraditionthatcapturesamaster'sentering‐the‐roomstyleofsermon.TheappealoftheShōbōgenzōislargelyduetothisunusualquality,butthecollectionofDōgen'sformalsermons,theEiheikōroku,whileoftenoverlooked,isequallyimportantforanunderstandingofhiscompletewritings.18

TheAbbot'sQuartersisknownasthe“ten‐footsquarehut”(C.feng‐chang,J.hōjō),followingapassageintheVimalakirtiSutrainwhichaninformedlaymanholdingforthinahumbleabodedemonstratestheabilitytooutsmartbodhisattvas.ThischamberalsoseemstohaverootsinthelayoutofTaoisttemples,whichdidnothavetheequivalentofaDharmaHallorBuddhaHallandwheretheroomfortheabbotwasmoreofanall‐purposeareausednot(p.45) onlyforresidentialandinstructionalpurposes,butalsoforadministrationandculturaldemonstrations.Astimewentby,thefunctionoftheAbbot'sQuartersasacenterofculturalactivitiesbegandevelopinginZenaswell.Also,forbothTaoistandChineseZentemples,thetermfang‐changwasusedtorefertoboththefacilityandthepersonresidingtherein,muchasZenmastersoftentooktheirmonikersfromthenameofthemountainswheretheyabided(orviceversa).19

Thisbasicpatternoflinkingthetwostructures(DharmaHallandAbbot'sQuarters)withthetwostylesofsermons(enteringthehallbythemasterandenteringtheroomofthemaster),initiatedinSungdynastyChineseZentemples,isalsofoundinJapanesetemplesestablishedinthemid‐thirteenthcenturywhenZenwasbeingimportedfromthemainland.TheseincludesuchprominentexamplesasTōfukujifoundedinKyotobyEnniBen'en,EiheijifoundedinEchizenprovincebyDōgen,andKenchōjifoundedinKamakurabyLan‐hsi.EnniandDōgenbothtraveledandtrainedattemplesintheChineseFiveMountainsmonasticsystem,includingMt.Ching,theleadtempleinthesystemwhereEnnispentsixyears,andMt.T'ien‐t'ung,whereDōgenstudiedforafewyearsandfromwhichhebroughtbacktheSungstyle.Lan‐hsicametoJapanfromMt.Chingattheinvitationoftheshogun.However,thescaleoftheChinesetempleswasconsiderablylargerandgrander,withthemonasterybecomingasizableadministrativeunitwithmanydivisionsanddepartments,whereasJapanesetemplesfunctionedonamoreminimalistandsimplifiedscale.ThediagramfromatemplebrochurehighlightedinFigure2.1showsthecloseproximityandaffinityoftheDharmaHallandAbbot'sQuartersatKenchōji,whichareseparatedbyaspecialgate(karamon).AccordingtotheanthropomorphicmodelformulatedinTokugawaeraJapan,theheadoftheBuddhaconsistsofbothstructures,withtheDharmaHallrepresentinghisvoiceandtheAbbot'sQuartershismind.

HCCscholarshavenotedseveralproblemswiththetraditionalaccountoftheDharmaHallandAbbot'sQuarters.First,Pai‐chang'stext,traditionallyreferredtoastheoriginalZenmonasticcodeandattributedtothemid‐ninthcenturybutfirstappearingintheearlyeleventhcentury,isofquestionableprovenance.Also,ZentemplesinbothChinaandJapanweremuchmorecomplexanddiverseintheirpracticesthanindicatedinthe

Zen Writes

Page 9 of 35


CMK,sothatthepresenceofrelics,theactofrepentance,chanting,andincenseburning,amongmanyotherfunctions,ledtotheestablishmentofmultiplestructuresforadministration,ceremonies,labor,andoutreach,asindicatedintheGJZ.Indeed,Zentemples“hadspaciouscompoundsencompassingoverfiftymajorandminorstructures,facilitiesforarichvarietyofreligiouspracticesandceremonies,andsometimesmorethanathousandpersonsinresidence,(p.46)

Figure2.1. Kenchōjitemplelayout.Fromtemplepromotionalmaterials.

(p.47) includingmonasticofficers,ordinarymonksandnuns,laypostulantsandlaborers.”20Furthermore,itisdifficultformodernresearcherstorecreatewhattranspiredinthemedievalperiod,sincesomanystructuresinChinaweredestroyedoverthecenturiesbywarandtheelements,andthenagainbymodernevents,includingtheCulturalRevolution,andthesameistrueinJapanduetofires,wars,andotherdisasters.Forexample,Eiheijitemple'sbuildingshavebeenrepeatedlyrebuilt,sothattheoldeststructureontoday'scompound,whichislocatedonadifferentpeakthanwas

Zen Writes

Page 10 of 35


theoriginaltemple,islessthantwohundredyearsold.

AccordingtotheCMK,theemphasisontheabbot'spublicfunctionsintheDharmaHallobviatestheneedforaBuddhaHall,whichwasthecenterpieceofthetemplesofotherschoolsasaplacetoenshrineanddisplayimagesandiconsasobjectsofworship.EventhoughtheZenapproachtotempledesignissaidtobeuniquecomparedtothatofotherBuddhistschools,HCCarguesthatthemainhallsinZencompoundswereactuallymoreorlessthesameasothertemplesfromtheera,includingtheLü(orVinaya)andT'ien‐t'aischoolsinChinaandtheJapaneseTendaisect.21Ontheonehand,theseschoolssimilarlyemphasizedtheroleoflectures,andatthesametime,theDharmaHallinZenwasnotnecessarilyusedinthewaydescribedbytheCMK.TheDharmaHallwasinfactmoreliketheBuddhaHall,andeventhougheliminatedintheory,itisclearfromtheGJZthatthisstructurewasneverabandoned.Perhapsthetwostructureswereusedsomewhatinterchangeablyasthegrand,ceremonialhallthatwasthejewelofthecompound.AnothercommonfeatureofZentempleswastheReadingRoom(shuryō)forthestudyofsutras,whichwereoftenchantedaloudintheSamghaHallbutnotstudiedforpedagogicalpurposes.

Nevertheless,thereweresignificantdifferencesbetweenZenandBuddhismmoregenerallyandbetweenZenandTaoism,reflectingadivergentideologicalemphasis.WhetherornotdirectlyrelatedtotheDharmaHall,Zenmasterscreatedadistinctiveandlastingformofdiscourse.OtherChineseBuddhistschoolsdidnotcreatekōansorcommentariesnordidtheydevelopthekindofcreativityinusingwordsandletterstodefeatwordsandlettersthatZenmastersconsistentlydemonstratedoverthecourseofseveralpeakcenturies(especiallytheelevenththroughfourteenthcenturies)ofcontinuinginnovation.Zenmastershadaparticularstyle,forexample,inusingtheceremonialflywhiskasarhetoricalelementbydrawingacircleintheairtoconveyultimatenonbeing,throwingitdowntoshowdisgustwithadisciple'scomment,orclaimingitturnedintoadragonorfloggedathousandwildfoxesasanironicexpressionofmagicalbeliefs.However,oncethetremendousliteraryproductivityofZenmastersisacknowledged,thequestionremains(p.48) whethertheirprofusionofwordsandcountlessinstancesofcontradictoryandabsurdutterancesandgesturesmakeanysense.

SenseorNonsense?Zendiscourseisdeliberatelyopaqueandmysterious,sphinx‐likeandperplexing,elusiveandenigmatic.Ambiguity,incongruity,andcontradictionareblendedwithtautologyandassertionsoftheobviousinordertothrowthedisciples/readersoffguardorcatchthembysurprisesoastooverturnidleassumptionsandpreoccupations.Whocansayforsurewhatanyofthisreallymeans,orifitmeansanythingatall?Theimageofaninkblotspilledoncalligraphy,whichappearsonthecoverofatranslationofoneofthemajorkōancollections,TheBookofSerenity22(C.Tsung‐junglu,J.Shōyōroku),asshowninFigure2.2highlightstheRorschachqualityofZenwritings,intowhichonecanreadasmuchoraslittleasonelikes.

Zen Writes

Page 11 of 35


Figure2.2. FromthecoverofTheBookofSerenity.

(p.49) DaleWrightcommentsonaquixoticeventinwhichHuang‐podrovemonksawayfromtheDharmaHallwithhisstaff,andwhentheywereleavinghecalledtothem,“Thecrescentislikeabentbow,verylittlerainbutonlystrongwinds.”Wrightwondersabouttherelevanceofthemaster'sseeminglyrandomremark,“Perhaps,likeus,noone[intheaudienceatthetime]hadtheslightestideawhatHuangPowastalkingabout.Orperhapstherewereclues,presentonlyinthatimmediatecontextordecipherableonlytoanexclusivefew.”23

Inaway,bothTZNandwhatwouldseemtobeitsnemesis,thedissolutionthesiswingofHCC,agreethatZendiscourseisnonsensical,buttheycometothisconclusionfornearlyoppositereasons.ForTZN,nonsenseinZenisunderstoodinthemostpositiveoftermsonametaphysicallevelrisingaboveandstandingbeyondthecontrastandconflictbetweensenseandsenselessness.Nonsenseisatoolskillfullyusedtohelpputanendtoseekingapathofreasonandtopointtoanenlightenedstateunboundbythepolarityoflogicorillogic.Forthedissolutionthesis,ontheotherhand,theendlesswordplayinZenliteraturerepresentsaninfantilestammeringandthewillfulabandonmentofmeaning,andisakindofverbalcunningandtrickerythatharborsriskyethical(i.e.,antinomian)consequences.HerewefindclearlytherootsofthecritiqueofZen'sfailuretonegotiatehumanrightsissues,whichseemstorestonatendencytowarddeceptive,duplicitousrhetoricthatavoidsbeingpinneddownorcommittedtoanyparticularviewordecision.

AprimeexampleofthedissolutionthesisisthecommentbytheJesuitLeonWieger,whowrotein1927thatthe“immenseliterature”oftheZenschoolwas

aquantityoffoliosfilledwithincoherent,meaninglessanswers,madetoanykindofquestion,andcarefullyregistered,withoutanycommentaryorexplanation.Theyarenot,ashasbeensupposed,allusionstointerioraffairsoftheconventunknowntous.Theyareexclamationswhichescapedfromthestultifiedones,momentarilydrawnfromtheircoma.24

Zen Writes

Page 12 of 35


Thistypeofcritique,whichsuggeststhatmonksinmeditationarenothingbutzombies,cannotavoidbeingconsideredOrientalistinitsone‐sided,dismissivedisregardoftryingtounderstandZensympatheticallyandonitsownterms.

WhathappenswhenforcefulcriticismcomesnotfromtheWestbutfromtheOrientitself?InanexampleofwhatcanbereferredtoasinvertedOrientalism,MishimaYukiopondersthequestion,ifZendialoguesaresoopen‐endedastoallowforconstantshiftingbetweenmultipleperspectives,onwhat(p.50) basiscanstandardsofevaluationandguidancebeestablishedwithoutself‐contradictionorhypocrisy?InTempleoftheGoldenPavilion,ascathingcritiqueofZenmonasticlifeinpostwarJapanbyanauthorknownforhispro‐imperialandanti‐Buddhistpoliticalleanings,MishimaexposesapotentiallyfatalflawofkōancasesusedinZentrainingwhentheyaregivenidiosyncraticandseeminglycapricious,distortedreadingsbykeycharacterstojustifytheirquestionablemotives.

InanovelizationbasedonatrueincidentinwhichadisturbedacolytetorchedoneofthefamousZentemples,thefathersuperiorofthetempleusesthe“Nan‐ch'üanKillstheCat”kōantoexplainawaythetragedyofwaraswellashisownlackofleadershipduringtimesofhardship.Also,thedisabledsocialmisfitKashiwagievokesthesamecasetodefendhisexploitationofbeautifulwomen.MishimafurthercontrastsFatherZenkai,whoexhibits“thegentlenessoftheharshrootsofsomegreattreethatgrowsoutsideavillageandgivessheltertothepassingtraveler,”withmoretypicalZenpriests.Thesearedepictedasbeing

apttofallintothesinofnevergivingapositivejudgmentonanythingforfearofbeinglaughedatlaterincasetheyhavebeenwrong.[Theyare]thetypeofZenpriestwhowillinstantlyhanddownhisarbitrarydecisiononanythingthatisdiscussed,butwhowillbecarefultophrasehisreplyinsuchawaythatitcanbetakentomeantwooppositethings.25

AcontemporaryWesternscholar,AlanCole,takesMishima'sviewafewstepsfurtherregardingwhatColereferstoasthedeficientmannerofthinking,“I'msuretheMasterknows.”HedenouncesthewayZenrhetorichedgesitsbetsordodgescommitmenttoasetstandpointforthesakeofconcoctingwhatheregardsasanobfuscation(i.e.,thatZenisallthingstoallpeople,orwhateveritisimaginedtobe).Thisapproachprobablyhelpedtoexpandthesect'sbaseofappealinanenvironmentwhereitcompetedwithrivalideologiesinBuddhism,Taoism,andConfucianism.

Coleexaminesoneoftheearliesttransmissionsofthelamptexts,theChuanfa‐paochiattributedtotheNorthernschool(interestingly,thistextcontainsnoreferencetosixthpatriarchHui‐neng,whoisgenerallyportrayedbysupporter/evangelistShen‐huiasthesharpestcriticoftheNorthernschoolinfoundingtheSouthernschool).Indiscussingtheproblematicsofinterpretingthetext,hecomparesthecreationofZenwritingstothehistoricalformationoftheviolin.BothZenandtheviolin“underwentagradualdevelopmentinwhichitsplaceatthemeetingplacebetweenperformerandaudiencewasrefinedtomaximizethatexchange.”“However,”Coleargues:(p.51)

Zen Writes

Page 13 of 35


thekeydifferencebetweentheevolutionofChanrhetoricandtheviolinisthatChandoesn'thaveatangibleproduct.TheknowledgesatplayinChandiscourseproduce“music‐like”discourseeffectsthatareasrealasanythingelse,itisjustthattheyaren'tsecuredtoanythingsubstantial,andinsteadderivefromsubjectsthinkinginacertainwayaboutothersubjects(theperfectmasters),andthenreconceivingtheirownsubjecthoodinanewformasaconsequenceofthatfantasybeingtakenasreal.Moreover,becausethereisnothinghereotherthanthiscircleofself‐reference,themusiccanstopatanymoment.26

ForCole,Zenrhetoricisashamthatusesenigmaticexpressionsasasmokescreentoconcealitsemptyshell,andthereisnotevena(nalbeitfictional)FatherZenkai–likefiguretoresuscitatethetraditionthroughawholesomeandhealingoutlook.

WhileColeprovidesaprobinganddetailedstudyoftheformativeperiod,thelimitationhereisthattheadvancesofHCCscholarshipseemtohaveledfullcircletothereintroductionofOrientalismnowdisguisedassophisticatedscholarship.OnecounterattackofferedbyTZNistoshowthatZenrhetoricalstrategiesdidnotrepresentanunstableandarbitraryattackonreason,buthaddeeprootsinChinesethoughtandwereinfluencedbytheinexpressibilityoftheTao,asevokedinLao‐tzu'spolysemousverse,Chuang‐tzu'spuzzlingnarratives,andTaoYuan‐ming'sutopianparables.Chuang‐tzuofferstheexampleofafishtraptodemonstratetheinstrumentalfunctionoflanguage,whichisquitesimilartotheBuddha'sdiscardableraftandWittgenstein'simageofaladderthatisnolongerusedwhenonereachestheroof:“Thefishtrapexistsbecauseofthefish;onceyou'vegottenthefish,youcanforgetthesnare.Wordsexistbecauseofmeaning;onceyou'vegottenthemeaning,youcanforgetthewords.”27Inasimilarvein,TaoYuan‐ming'sphilosophyoflifeisepitomizedbyhishouseorhutasacentralmetaphorfortheunityofselfandnaturegainedwhilelivingcontemplativelyamidthedustyworld:

Ibuiltmyhutwithintheworldofmen,Butthereisnonoiseofcarriagesandhorses.Youmayaskhowthisispossible:Whentheheartissubdued,solitudecomes.Pickingchrysanthemumsbytheeasternfence,UnawaresIcatchaglimpseofthesouthernmountainsinthedistance.Themountainairisfreshduringthelovelysunset.Andflocksofbirdsarereturningtotheirnests.(p.52)Thereisagreatmeaninginallofthesethings,ButwhenItrytoexpressit,Icannotfind[forget]mywords.28

OtherinfluencesonthestyleofZenwritingsderivefromavarietyofEastAsianliterarygames,whichhavetheeffectofmakingdiscourseseemmysteriousorevenpointlessasuninitiatedreadersgraspinvaintodiscernunidentifiedresonances.Typicaltechniquesinclude(1)theextensiveuseofallusions,whichcreateafeelingofdisconnectionwiththemaintheme;(2)indirectreferences,suchastitlingapoemwithonetopicandcomposingaversethatseemsonthesurfacetobetotallyunrelated;(3)inventivewordplaybasedon

Zen Writes

Page 14 of 35


thefactthatkanji(Chinesecharacters)arehomophonicandconveymultiple,oftencomplementaryorcontradictorymeanings;and(4)linkingtheversesinasustainedstringbasedonhiddenpointsofconnectionorcontinuity,suchasseasonalimageryorreferencestomythsandlegends.AsVictorHoripointsout:

InChineseliteraturethegenerallydominantplacegiventoallusionandanalogymeansthatlanguageisoftenusedtosayonethingandmeananother.Indeed,thegameisatitsbestwhentheopponent‐partnersaresowellmatchedthateachunderstandstheother'suseofimages,allusions,orturnsofphrasewithoutrequiringanythingtobeexplainedordeciphered.29

InadditiontoshowingvariousinfluencesfromotherEasterntraditions,anargumentinsupportofTZN'semphasisontheideathatZenmastersmakesensebeyondthedichotomyofsenseandnonsenseisthatZenhashadagreataffinitywith,andinsomecasesadirectimpacton,avarietyofintellectual,artistic,andliterarymovementsinthemodernWest.TheserangefromAmericantranscendentalismandFrenchimpressionisminthenineteenthcentury,whenAmericaandEuropewerefirstbeingexposedtoAsianthought,tophenomenology,dadaism,expressionism,surrealism,streamofconsciousness,Beatpoetry,andpostmodernisminthetwentiethcentury,aswellasthezanycomedyoftheMarxBrothersandtheexperimentalmusicandwritingsofJohnCage.Intheseexamples,wefindthinkers,writers,andartistsmovingawayfromfactualdiscussionsorrealisticportrayalstowardaformofexpressionthatallowstheinnertruthofsubjectivitytoprevailinadecentereduniverseinwhichthelinesseparatingsubjectandobject,realityandillusion,ortruthanduntruth,havebrokendown.

Toputitanotherway,thetrendhasbeenawayfromlanguageusedforthesakeofsignification,assertion,andinsistenceonlogicalargumentation,whichisinvariablypartialandone‐sided,towardendlesslyplayfulusesof(p.53) wordsandaninterplaywithsilence.Contemporaryphilosophical,literary,andotherkindsofartisticworksmaynotseemtomakemuchsense,butharborotherlevelsofmeaning.AsMarkTaylorsuggests,Westerndiscourserecognizespresencepervadedbyabsence,andevokesnotionsofliminality,marginality,transgression,orthecarnivalesquetocausethedisappearanceoffixednotionsandpresuppositionsandtheerasureofdifferencesbetweenfalselyimposedcategories.30ThisbearsastrikingresemblancetoTung‐shan'slivingwords,whichmayappearsenselessordisruptiveofcommonsense,butinrevealingthatallwordshaveonlyrelativevalidityandarethereforeultimatelymeaningless,actuallypointtoahighertruthoruncommonsensebeyondspeechandsilence.

Oneofthemostaggressivelyanti‐logocentricmovementsatthebeginningofthetwentiethcenturywasdadaism,whichsoughtanoverturningoflogicandreasonbroughtaboutbyeccentricexpressionsofpoetryandart.AtthefirstpublicsoireeatacabaretonJuly14,1916,themanifestoforthedadamovementwasrecited,callingforareadingofpoemsmeanttodispensewithconventionallanguage.Dadaistsclaimedtohavelostconfidenceinmoderncultureandwantedtodotheunexpectedandshockcommonsense,aswellaspublicopinion,education,institutions,museums,goodtaste,andthe

Zen Writes

Page 15 of 35


wholeprevailingorder.31

AnotherinterestingexampleisLewisCarroll'stwoAliceinWonderlandbooks,whichraiseaseriesofinterestingquestionsregardingthenatureoflanguage,selfhood,andtimethatchallengeconventionalviewsandpointtowardaZen‐likerealmofunderstanding.CarrollwasadonatOxfordwhopublishedhundredsofbooksandpamphletsonmathematicsandlogic,amongothertopics,inadditiontotheparodynonsenseepicTheHuntingoftheSnark.32HughHaughtonpointsoutthatthroughoutthetwoAlicebooks,thereare“persistentpuzzles,paradoxesandriddles,whichhaunttheapparentlystablemirrortheoriesoflanguagewhichhavedominatedthephilosophyoftheWest.”33

LogicalreasoningisusedinAlice'sconversationstoprovenonsensicalassertions,suggestingthatconventionallogichappenstobeupsidedownorthatinsnubbing,contradicting,andorderingAliceaboutquitecallouslycharacterswhoarepseudologicianscanprovethemselvessuperiorbyargumentswhicharenonsensebutneverthelessseemtosatisfythem.Theeffectistoshowtheinnatelyabsurdandfutilenatureoflanguageandlogic.AccordingtoHumptyDumpty,whoiscalled“themostbelligerentlyradicalofthemanyphilosophersoflanguagewhohaunttheirpages”andwhodemonstrates“linguisticaberrationanddisorder,”34“[w]henIuseaword,itmeansjustwhatIchooseittomean—neithermorenorless.”Headds,“Thequestionis,which(p.54) istobemaster—thatisall.”35WordplayintheAlicebooksincludesthedeformationofwords,suchas“WecalledhimTortoisebecausehetaughtus.”36TimeisgivensimilartreatmentbytheMadHatter,whoreferstothisdimensionnotasan“it”buta“him,”ofwhomheasksfavorslikespeedinguptheclock.Timeandhowitservesasaninstrumentfororganizinghumanaffairsisnotwhatitseems,anditispointedoutinAlicethatan“un‐birthday”iscelebratedmuchmorefrequentlythanabirthday.

Inanotherexample,T.S.Eliot'sTheWasteLandisapoemofanguish,desperation,andcollapseonbothpersonalandculturallevelsamida“crazy,fragmented”worldthatissoobtuseitrequiresasetofnotesbytheauthortoilluminesomeofthemoreobscurereferences.Eliot'swritingconfrontsthefirst‐timereaderwiththequestionof“howtoreadthepoem:howtoassimilateitandmakesenseofit.”The“apparentchaosofthework,thedifficulty,theexcess,”whichinawaycaptures“thedazzlingandsometimesincoherentworldoutside,”37disclosesnotmeaninglessnessbutamultiplicityoflayersofmeaningandlevelsofallusionthatmakeitendlesslyrichandthoughtprovoking.

Similarly,inaforewordtothe1961bookSilence:LecturesandWritings,whichcollectsavarietyofworksconcerningthebasisofmusicalcompositionandperformancefromatwenty‐yearperiod(1939–1958),JohnCagecitesinfluencesfromZenandtheBookofChangesaswellasWesternmysticismandpsychology.Cageiswellknownforhiscomposition4:33(whichreferstofourminutesandthirty‐threesecondsofsilence),inwhichthepianistsitsatandopenstheinstrumentbutmakesnosound.Thewritingsinthebookexperimentwithvariousstylisticfeaturesintermsofformat,fonts,layout,etc.,toshowthelimitsofwrittendiscourseandtheavenuetounderstandingthetruemeaning

Zen Writes

Page 16 of 35


ofthetitleword.RespondingtodisparagementbyAlanWattsthathehadnotstudiedZenproperly,Cageissuedthedisclaimer,“WhatIdo,IdonotwishblamedonZen,thoughwithoutmyengagementwithZen … IdoubtwhetherIwouldhavedonewhatIhavedone. … ImentionthisinordertofreeZenofanyresponsibilityformyactions.”38TheZenqualityinCage,regardlessofwhetherhewasimmersedinstudiesoftheclassicalZentradition(which,HCCscholarswouldargue,Wattshimselfknowsonlysuperficially),istocontinuallycastasideconventionalnotionsofwhatartandliteraturearesupposedtobeandcontinuallyreinventusesoflanguageevenifseeminglyincomprehensibleorabsurd.

ThelightshedonZenwritesbymakingcomparisonswithexamplesofmodernWesternthoughtandartcanbesummedupwithaparaphraseofadouble‐edgedBobDylanlyric,“There'snosenselikenonsense,andnonsensemakesnosenseatall”(“LoveMinusZero/NoLimit,”1964).Onepointisthat(p.55) onemustdelvebetweenthelinesorbeneaththesurfacetoappreciatewritingsthatonthesurfacedonotmakemuchsense.Buttherealpointisthatthereisnopoint,andisn'tthatreallythepoint?Orisit?Oncesenseitselfischallengedasalegitimatecategory,thenextquestionasks,whatisthesenseofallthisnonsense?Thatis,arewordsusefulasaninstrumentforsurpassingwords,asclaimedbyTZN?Or,isitbecausenonsensicalityopensupacompletelynewmeaningofsenseevokednotbytheabandonmentbutratherthroughtheuseofwords,asassertedbytherealizationthesiswingofHCC?

Words,Silence,orNoWords?TheTZNtendencytoemphasizesilenceasthenecessaryfinalsolutiontotheproblemoftheinnatedeficienciesoflanguageandlogicinconveyingultimatetruthhasbeenchallengedbytherealizationthesis,whichlookscarefullyatBuddhistandTaoistinfluencesthatoftenindicatethatsilenceisoneofnumerousoptionsbutnotanabsolute.WhilethedebatebetweenTZNandtherealizationthesisbeginsindisagreementconcerningtheroleofsilence,itendsinanapparentaccordthatenhancestheTZNpositionbystressingthedistinctivequalityofZenwritings.

SilencehasalwaysbeenhighlightedinZen.Buttherehasalsobeenalong‐standingcontroversyaboutwhethersilenceshouldbeseenasthegoal,withlanguageservingasameanslikethefingerpointingtothemoonorthepolishingofglasstomakeamirrorbright,orwhethertheinverseisthecaseandsilenceistobeseenasameanswithcreativeusesoflanguageunderstoodasthegoal.Theemperor'sprefacetothetransmissionofthelamptext,theT'ien‐shengkuang‐tenglu,maintainsthatlanguageisaformofillusionandbondage:“Thosewhoachieveunderstandingwillthereupondispelillusion.Thosewithtranscendentrealizationwillthereupondiscardthecageofscripturalteaching.”39Atbest,hesuggests,languageisanexpedientmeansthatenablesoneto“peacefullydwellonsnowymountains,”butonlyonceitsusehasbeentranscended.Yet,incontrasttothis,manykōantextssuchastheWu‐menkuanarguethatitisfalsetospeakoftransmissionyetequallyfalsetodenyortorefrainfromspeakingofit.

HowdowereconciletheseseeminglycontradictoryapproachesandfindaresolutiontothedoublebindimpliedbytheWu‐menkuan?TZNwouldarguethattruerealizationof

Zen Writes

Page 17 of 35


thedharmainvariablytranscendsthewordsthatconveyit,andthatthisprocessofgoingbeyondistherealmeaningofthephrase“aspecialtransmissionoutsidethesutras,”whichdoesnotimplyaliteralrejectionofscriptureorotherformsoflanguage.Rather,thephrase(p.56) referstoa“superiorabilitytopenetratetothedeepestmeaningofthesutras,apenetrationthatfollowswordsasfarastheycangoandthen,attheextremelimitofconceptualization,leavesthembehind.”40Accordingtothisoutlook,thewayofverbalexpressionistobecutoff(yen‐yütaotuan),asexemplifiedbyHui‐k'o'ssilentbow,andthebasisofmentalactivitytherebydestroyed.Therefore,languageisdetrimentaltotheattainmentofenlightenment,butitcanfunctionasaprovisionaltoolandleadbeyonditself.

Therealizationthesisarguesforadevaluationofsilence,thevalorizationofwhichreducesdiscoursetoamereinstrument,alongwithacorrespondingupgradeoftheroleoflanguageusedextensivelybyZenmasters,suchthatwordsandlettersarenotconsideredanobstaclebutratheragreatreservoirofresourcesforcommunicatingshadesoftruth.41Forexample,thepassageinwhichChuang‐tzuusesthefishtrapanalogyendswiththequery,“WherecanIfindamanwhohasforgottenwordssoIcanhaveawordwithhim?”whichsuggeststhatoncethetruevalueofwordsisunderstood,theycanbeusedinanongoingcreativedialogue.Inanotherpassage,Chuang‐tzuputsanemphasisonusing“gobletwords”or“nowords,”whichstandincontrasttoTung‐shan'sdeadwords.“Withwordsthatarenowords,”Chuang‐tzuwrites,“youmayspeakallyourlifelongandyouwillneverhavesaidanything.Oryoumaygothroughyourwholelifewithoutspeakingthem,inwhichcaseyouwillneverhavestoppedspeaking.”42

KōanasMonasticNarrative:ActionsSpeakLouderTZNandtherealizationthesiswingofHCCagreethatthekeytounderstandingthequixoticutterancesandpedagogicalpuzzlesthatepitomizetheremarkableingenuityandcreativityofZenBuddhismis,inaword,thekōan.Kōancaserecords,whichformthecenterpieceofthevaststorehouseofZenliteratureaswellastechniquesfortraining,havebeeninterpretedinnumerousways,somecomplementaryandothersconflicting,includingpsychological,literary,andritualisticstylesofinterpretation.Theseinterpretivestylesgenerallyhavemuchtocontribute,buteachonitsown,whetheralignedwithTZNinstrumentalismortheHCCrealizationthesismodel,oftenendsinaone‐sidedorpartialperspectiveofthecomplexityofkōanrecordsandthevoluminous,richlytexturedcollectionsthatcontainandcommentonthem.IfweremainlockedintoapolarizedTZN‐versus‐HCCdebate,othersignificantaspectsofZendiscoursemaywellbeoverlooked.

Theapproachtakenhereemphasizesacomprehensiveanalysisthatencompassesaspectsofdiverseinterpretivemodelsbyfocusingontheimportance(p.57) oftheencounterdialoguecomponentinkōancases,whichinvolvestheinteractionbetweenamasterandadisciplewhomheistestingorarivalwithwhomheiscontestingwitsandspiritualprowess.Therefore,thekeyelementisnottheissueofwhetherlanguageisameansoranend,butthemessageofthekōancaseswithregardtotheirroleasmonasticnarratives.IncontrasttoLeonWieger'scommentthatkōansarenotallusionsto“interioraffairsoftheconventunknowntous,”inmanyinstances,thatisexactlywhattheyare.But

Zen Writes

Page 18 of 35


themessageisatoncehiddenandrevealedinakindofcodethatprovidesametaphorfor,andatthesametimeobscures,thekindsofconflictsanddecisionsthattakeplaceinamonasticsetting.AsBernardFauresuggestsinhisperformativeapproachtoZenwrites:

Perhaps[kōans]donotintendtoexpressameaning,buttoimpressaninterlocutor,togaintheupperhandinacontestwhereallmovesareallowed.Likeanyritualorlanguagegame,theyworksimultaneouslyonseverallevels—thesemantic,thesyntactic,and,moreimportant,thesemioticorpragmaticlevels.Theyareessentiallyperformative.Theirfunctionis,touseAustin'sterminology,illocutionary(insofarastheycreatean“event”andnecessitatesomekindofsocialceremonial)andperlocutionary(insofarastheyproduceeffectsthatarenotalwaysperceivedbytheinterlocutors).43

Thepoliticalfactorofcontestation—inatwofoldsenseofturfbattleswithinthemonasticinstitutionalsystemsetagainstthebackgroundofthelargersociopoliticalcontextofChinesesociety—isquiteevidentintheliteratureofencounterdialoguesdepictingtheinterpersonalexchangesofZenmasters.Althoughoftenappearingintheguiseofpresentingahistoricalaccount,Zenwritingsdonotsticktothetaskofprecisehistoriography.ThisispartlybecausetheywereproductsofthepremodernChineseworldview,whichwasmythologicalandfancifulintakingmagicseriously,butitisalsobecausetheiraimwasnotfactualitybutpersuadingtheselectedaudienceofthesignificanceofmaster‐disciplerelationsintermsoflegitimatinglineagesandestablishingtheauthorityandhierarchyoftransmission.Fromtheperspectiveofseeingthepoliticalfactor(intheabovesense)asthemarrow,thedebatesbetweenTZNandbothwingsofHCC(dissolutionthesisandrealizationthesis)seemrelegatedtothelevelofskin,flesh,andbones.

WecanconsiderhowtheenigmaticconcludinglineofPi‐yenlucase73on“Ma‐tsu'sFourAffirmationsandHundredNegations”underscoresthemeritofacomprehensiveinterpretationofkōanliteraturethatincludestheelementofmonasticpolitics.44Thefinallineofthecaseatfirstseemstoepitomizenonsensicalityinbearingnologicalrelationtothemainnarrative,butinthe(p.58) finalanalysis,ithighlightsthemonasticmodelofinterpretation.Thecaserecord'spointeropenswithcharacteristicparadox:

InexplainingtheDharma,thereisneitherexplanationnorteaching;inlisteningtotheDharma,thereisneitherhearingnorattainment.Sinceexplanationneitherexplainsnorteaches,howcanitcomparetonotexplaining?Sincelisteningneitherhearsnorattains,howcanitcomparetonotlistening?Still,notexplainingandnotlisteningwillamounttosomething.

Thepointersetsupthequestion,Wheredoesonegofromthedoublebindregardingsenseandnonsenseevokedhere,otherthantoanevengreatersenseofsenselessness?

Inthemaincasenarrative,adiscipleasksMa‐tsu,“Beyondthefourassertionsandhundreddenials,whatisthemeaningofBodhidharmacomingfromthewest?”Sayingthatheistootiredtoexplain,Ma‐tsudirectsthediscipletoseeTsang(orHsi‐t'ang,oneofhis

Zen Writes

Page 19 of 35


primaryfollowers),whosayshehasaheadacheandcannotexplainitandrecommendsthatthedisciplevisitHai(orPai‐chang,Ma‐tsu'smostfamousfollower,whocarriesontheHung‐chouschoollineage).Pai‐changalsobowsoutbysayingthathedoesnotunderstandthequestion.Thefrustrateddisciplereturnsandtellswhathappenedtotheteacher,whodeclares,“Tsang'sheadiswhite,Hai'sheadisblack.”

Inthiscase,thediscipleprefacesanunanswerablequestionusedinmanyZendialogueswithareferencetotranscendingthepolarityofassertionanddenial.AftergettingtherunaroundfromMa‐tsuandhisimportantfollowers,hereceivestheteacher'sfinalstatement,whichcouldbeinterpretedasanonsequiturthatdoesawayonceandforallwiththequestion‐answerprocess.Thedisciple,whodidnotgetthemessagethefirstthreetimes,isinformedinnouncertaintermsthatitistimetoceaseanddesisthispestering.Orperhapsthelastlineisanironicaffirmationofeverydayexistenceakintothesayings,“Willowsaregreen,flowersarered,”or“Myeyesliehorizontallyandmynoseisvertical.”45Thisarbitrarinessoftheactualwordsmakesthestatementseemnonsensical,butitmakessenseonametalevelbypointingbeyondverbiagetoahighertruth.Eitherreadingofthefinalline,asathoroughnegationoftheinquiryorasadeceptivelysimpleaffirmationofeverydayreality,wouldseemtosupporttheTZNinstrumentalistinterpretationofthekōanasakindofverbalstopsigntothequestioner,andthismethodofanalysisappearscompleteandwithouttheneedforexploringotherlevelsofmeaning.

However,furtherprobingoftheconcludinglineindicatesamorecomplexpatternthattendstosupporttherealizationthesis.ŌgawaTakashishows(p.59) thatinChinesepronunciationatthetime(Sungdynasty),thecharacterfor“head”waspronouncedinthesamewayasthecharacterfor“marquis.”46ŌgawasuggeststhatareadingofthefinalsentenceshouldbeseeninlightofTsung‐junglucase40,Yün‐men's“WhiteandBlack,”whichusesthecharacterformarquisinevokinganoldstoryoftworobbers.Accordingtothecase,Yün‐menrespondstoamonkwhooutsmartshimbysaying,“IthoughtIwasMarquisWhite,butIfindthathereisMarquiseBlack.”MarquisWhiteandMarquiseBlackarenotedthievesinChinesefolklore.MarquiseBlack,afemalerobber,seemstohavebeentheclevererofthetwo,whobyafoxyrusetookawayeverythingthemalethiefhadgainedinhisefforts.

ThisapparentlyiswhyJohnWutranslatesthelineinPi‐yenlucase73as“Chih‐ts'ang[orTsang]wearsawhitecap,whileHuai‐hai[orHai]wearsablackcap.”Bycombiningtheallusiontothethieveswiththereferenceinthecasetotheword“head,”hecomesupwithahybridrendering.Wuremarksthatinthelegend,theblack‐cappedthief(orperhapsitshouldbeMarquiseBlack)was“moreruthlessandradicalthan”thewhite‐cappedthief(orMarquisWhite).ForWu,thisshowsthatPai‐changwasmore“ruthless”inthesenseofbeingmoreunsparinginhistreatmentofthejuniorfigure'sirrelevantquerythanwasHsi‐t'ang.Whilebothmonksdismissedthedisciple,theformer'sput‐downcarriedagreatersenseofauthorityandfinality.47

Sofar,wehavenotmovedbeyondtherealizationthesis,whichwouldfindacreativeuseofliterarygame‐styleallusionstobeakeytounderstandingthekōanbutwouldalso

Zen Writes

Page 20 of 35


agreewithTZNthatthepointofthecasereferstospiritualattainment,withMa‐tsugivingpraisetooneofhismaindisciplesforevokingsilence.However,withoutdenyingthisinterpretation,acrucialfactortobeaddedtotheanalysisisthatthecompilersofZenencounterdialoguesweretryingtomakeacaseforthesuperiorityofPai‐chang,whobecametheheirtoMa‐tsu'slineage,overtheothertwofollowers,Hsi‐t'angandtheinquirer.Thisinterpretation,whichstressesthepoliticsoflineagetransmission,isreinforcedbythePi‐yenlu'scappingphrasecommentontheconcludingline:“Withintherealmtheemperorrules,butpastthegatesitisthegeneralwhogivesorders.”Thisimpliesthatthemastersandmonksresemblewarlordsinestablishingtheirdomainsofhegemonyandbattlingoverprotectedterrain.

Bymakingaratherbolddeclarationcomparinghisfollowerstothieves(and,byextendingthethemeofcombat,togenerals),Ma‐tsudemonstratesthekindofattitudeexhibitedinmanykōandialoguesthatcombineselementsofaconventional,regulation‐basedadherencetoinstitutionalstructurewithanunconventionalline‐crossingandtables‐turningantistructuralism.Theantistructureevidentinsuchextremeactsas“killingtheBuddha”or“jumping(p.60) froma100‐footpole,”tociteacoupleofprominentcases,istransgressiveinchallenginganyandalllevelsofthestatusquo.Exchangesindialoguesfeaturingrolereversalsandone‐upmanship,violentoutburstsandphysicalblows,insultsandtheunderminingofauthorityshowthattruthisrevealedthroughtheprocessofcontestandconfrontation.ThisisthebasisforZen'sseekingtogobeyondconventionalwordsandletters,whichisnotthesameasanexclusivefocusonsilence.

Kuei‐shan's“KickingovertheWaterPitcher”Kōanrecordswerefirstpreservedindozensofcollectionscreatedfromtheelevenththroughthefourteenthcenturies.Atthattime,manybrilliantthougheccentricandunpredictableZenmastersemergedalongsidewidespreadbeliefinthepowerofsupernaturalentities,likemagicalanimalsandghosts,tocontrolsacreddomains.Thisperiodalsosawtheproliferationofart‐of‐warstrategiesforwarriorsbasedonthevirtuesofattentiveness,alertness,anddaringderivedfromanadvancedspiritualawareness.TheZendialogueisaprocessofspiritualpolishing,ortakingamindthatisrougharoundtheedgesandmakingitsmoothandattentivetobringoutitsmaximumcapabilityandutility.Thedialoguesexpressanorchestrationofritualsusingsymbols,bothverbalandphysical,interactingwiththesocialorderofmedievalEastAsiathatcanbeappliedtotoday'sculturalenvironment.48

ZenmastersplayedoffthecontextofChineseculture,atoncetoprovethemselvesandtoseekapprovalthroughspiritualcompetitionsor“dharmacombats.”Theseareaspecialformofencounterdialoguebetweenteachersandtheirdisciples,aswellasrivalsandtrainees.Theaimoftheencounterdialogueistopitmindagainstmind,withnoholdsbarredandmaythebestpersonwin!Someexampleswereoftencomposedtoresembleritualconteststhatshamansorwizardsheldwithgodsanddemons.Theywerealsooftencouchedinanatmosphereofmilitaryintrigue,asZenmasterswerecomparedtogeneralsmappingtheirplansofbattle.

Kōanrecordscapturetheconversationsandnonverbalexchangesthatshowhow

Zen Writes

Page 21 of 35


masterssoughttobreakthroughthebarriersoflanguageandhierarchyimposedbysocialandreligiousstructures.Itisinthissensethattheencounterdialoguerepresents“extraordinarywordsandstrangedeeds”(kigenkikō).Genuinecreativitythatderivesfrompurecontemplativeawarenesscannotbecontainedbythestandarduseofwordsthatareregulatedtoreflectmainstreamorganizationalstructures.Originalityexplodesinwaysthattransgressanddisrupttheconventionalandordinary.Thepointofthemaster's(p.61)

Figure2.3. AtraditionaldrawingofTe‐shanapproachingthehallwithhisbowlinhand.FromAkizukiRyūmin,Zenmondō(Tokyo:Sōbunsha,1976),p.168.

approachistochallengeprospectivefollowersandadversariesaliketothecoreoftheirbeing,inordertotesttheirinnermostessence.Truthisnotconfinedbywords,butdemandsabreakingoutofallbordersandboundaries.Themasterisunwillingtomakeanyconcessionortobudgeaninch.Hedemandsthateverybodybeacontestantinamatchofspiritualwits.

Inthecourseofthedialogues,theZenmastersusewordstochallengetheconventionalinstitutionalhierarchy,whichisreinforcedbysymbolsandrituals.Whenwords,evenextraordinary(paradoxicalorironic)ones,failtomakethepointeffectively,themastersthenmovebeyondlanguagetononverbalformsofcommunicationorstrangedeedswhilepursuingatruevisionthatresidesoutsidethelimitsofanyframework.Duringthemomentofdialogue,rankorstatusisthrownoutthewindow,andallthatmattersistheperson'sabilitytohaveapersonalrealizationoftruth.YetZenmastersdidnotremainintherealmofantistructureasanendinitself.Theyremediedtheexcessesofviolatingrulesbyreturningfromtheouterlimitsoftransgressiontooccupytheirproperplaceinthemonasticsystem.Thepatternofspeakingandnotspeaking,andofbehavingandmisbehavinginordertocrossbackandforthoverconceptualbordersandboundaries,andinandoutofstructures,(p.62) isilluminativeandinstructivefornavigatingtheroutesoforganizationalactivity.

Generally,atacriticalpointinZenencounterdialogues,thepersonquestionedordoingthequestioningexpressesantistructuralbehaviorthatbreakswithconvention.The

Zen Writes

Page 22 of 35


masterstearorburnasutraordrawacircleintheairwhilemakinganoffhand,crypticcomment.Or,theremaybeadramaticdenouementwiththemasterslappingthedisciple,orbeingslappedbyhimdependingonthecontext,sinceinthemomentthereisanovercomingofdivisionsbasedonrank,status,orotherextraneouscriteria.Theaimoftheslapisnottoreprimandorpunishbuttoawakenandinspirethetwoparties,boththeonedoingtheslappingandtheotherbeingslapped.Insomecases,thestudentstrikestheteachertochallengehisauthorityinaskingabsurdquestionsinthefirstplace.Inothercases,thephysicaldemonstrationismoreextremewithmasterscuttingacatintwo,orchoppingoffthefingerofadisciple,orthediscipleremovinghisownarm.Thesestorieswererecordedduringapremodernperiodwhenself‐mutilationasasignofself‐sacrificewasanot‐uncommonBuddhistasceticpractice.

AccordingtoZenencounterdialogues,thesuccessfulwayofhandlingadilemmaistoproveyourselfnotinwordsalone,butthroughsomeaction,demonstration,orgesturethatshowsaprofoundunderstanding.Wordsintersectwithnowords,andstructurewithantistructure,toplacepersonalrealizationratherthanideasasthehighesttruth.Silencecaneasilybemisunderstood.Therearevariouskindsofunsaying,whetherbasedonaninabilitytospeakorapurposefulrefrainingfromtryingtoexpresswhatcannotbeputinwords.Itisnecessarytodeterminethebasisforkeepingquiet.Silenceevokedinkōansgenerallyreflectsnotignoranceandevasivenessbutalevelofinsightbasedonaloftytranscendentalrealm,althoughtherearetimeswhenitrepresentssomeoneleftspeechlessorunabletoutteraresponsetoaqueryorcommand.

Case40oftheWu‐menkuancollectionfeaturesthewaythatkōansexpressaheighteningof,aswellasaresolutionfor,thechallengeorconflictofanencounterbetweencompetingZenmonks.49MasterPai‐changrequiresthathistwoleadingfollowerstellhimaboutawaterpitcherinordertodeterminethewinnerofthecontest,whowillbeawardedtheabbacyofanewmountaintemple.Thedisciplesareputinadoublebindofhavingtodescribetheobject“withoutcallingitapitcherandwithoutnotcallingitapitcher.”Inasimilarcaserecord,wheneveramonkpassedbyasecludedforesthermitage,themasterresidingtherewouldchargeuponhimwithhispitchforkinhandanddemand,“Tellmewhatthisiswithoutcallingitapitchfork,andwithoutnotcallingitapitchfork.Nowtellme,whatitis!”50Then,nomatterwhat(p.63) responsehegot,hewouldsay,“ItisclearthatyouareaDemon!”or,“SosaysanenemyoftheDharma(orBuddhistdoctrine)!”Eitherway“getsyouthirtyblowsofthestaff!”

Themonkdeclaredthevictorinthewaterpitchercase,Kuei‐shan,startsthecompetitionastheunderdogcompetingagainstthemonastery'sheadmonk,whomakesanindirectverbalresponsethattriestododgethequestion:“Itcan'tbecalledawoodenclog.”Followingthis,Kuei‐shan'sresponseofkickingoverthepitcherandsimplywalkingawayfromthesceneisatoncemoreindirectbyavoidingtheissuealtogetherandmoredirectbymakingaphysicalassaultontheobjectand,byextension,thequestioner.Hisdemonstrativegestureprevailsovertheadversary,whoseanswerreliedonwords,albeitinaninscrutableway.Kuei‐shanispraisedbyPai‐chang,andgoesontobecomethefounderofthenewmonastery.

Zen Writes

Page 23 of 35


ATZNinstrumentalinterpretationseesthekōanasawayofreleasingthemindfromitsrelianceonordinarylogic,thuscompellingandcompletingaspiritualbreakthroughtoanewlevelofconsciousnessunboundbyconventionallimitations.Byaccentuatingtheanxietyofthedoublebind,orthe“darnedifyoudoanddarnedifyoudon't”condition,themasterforcesadiscipleorrivaltogobeyondwordsyetcommunicateinaspontaneousandconvincingfashion.Inordertodealwiththischallenge,thesuccessfulmonkmustreactimmediatelybecauseanytraceofunduehesitationordeliberationonlyinterfereswithasuccessfulresponse.Whiletryingtoconveyinsightwithoutrelyingonwordsorreason,thedisciplealsorecognizesthatfailingtoreactbymaintainingadiffidentsilenceorrefrainingfromdivulginghisinnerthoughtswouldproveineffective.Performinginthishigh‐pressureatmosphereisthemainmethodfordeterminingtherelativemeritsofcontestants.Generally,nooneoutdoesthemaster,yetheisthefirsttoadmitdefeatifandwhenbested.

ArealizationthesisinterpretationreinforcestheTZNapproachinstressinganovercomingandtranscendenceofordinarywaysofthoughtandexpression.However,italsoputsaspecialemphasisonhowkōansuselanguagetodefeatarelianceonwordsorspeechinordertocreateashockeffectthatstimulatesthemindtoawakenfromitsphilosophicalslumber.Despitediscrepanciesandinconsistencies,theinstrumentalandrealizationinterpretationsagreethatthekeypointofthekōanisKuei‐shan'sturningandwalkingawayfromthescene,whichdemonstratestheinexpressibletruthinawaythatwordsandnowordsareunabletoaccomplish.Bothinterpretationsstressthatinthefinalanalysisspeechandsilence,aswellaskickingandnotkickingthepitcher,areultimatelyirrelevant.Whatiscrucialistoattainafundamentallevelofnondualitythatisaltogetherfreeofdichotomizationorpolarization.Therefore,theinstrumental(p.64) approach,whichseesthekōanasaheuristicdeviceorameanstotheendofattainingthetranscendenceofworldlyignoranceandattachmenttoreasonandlanguage,isnotsodistantfromtherealizationapproach.Thisapproachemphasizesanimmanentawarenessfunctioningwithinthemundanerealm,assymbolizedbyKuei‐shan'skick,ratherthantheactofgoingbeyondordinaryconsciousness,asrepresentedbyhisdeparture.

However,theinstrumentalandrealizationstylesofinterpretationmayseemlimitedinneglectingthesociohistoricalelementsofinterpretation.Accordingtoacomprehensiveinterpretiveapproach,anemphasisonasuddenarisingofinsighttriggeredbythekōanthatconquersunenlightenmentisnotnecessarilywhatZendiscourseintendedtocommunicate.Rather,theaimwastoconstructabroaderideologythatwouldwinthefavorofgovernmentofficialsandotherpatronsaswellasthemassesandthatincludesaliterarycomponent.AnoverwhelmingconcernofZenmasterswastodeveloptherulesandregulationsofmonasticroutine,includingthetransmissionofthelineagepedigreeandthetransferandinheritanceofthemantleofauthorityandleadership.51Therefore,theimpactofthekōanisnotbasedsimplyonKuei‐shanmaintainingsilenceincontrasttotheothermonk'suseofspeechnorontheactofkicking,butthewaytheoverallnarrativeaboutthecontesttogaintheabbacyofanewtempleinthefledglingZenschoolcreatesanappropriatecontextfordramatizingthefinalepisode.

Zen Writes

Page 24 of 35


Fromthisperspective,thekeyaspectofthecaseistheawardingoftheabbacyofthenewmonastery.AlthoughZeneventuallythrivedinacompetitivereligiousenvironmentcontrolledbyimperialdecrees,Buddhismasaforeignreligionwassubjecttoperiodsofsuppressionandproscription,especiallyintheeighthandninthcenturies.AcomprehensiveinterpretationalsodeemphasizestheiconoclasticrebelliousnessofKuei‐shanbypointingouttheimportanceofthebackgroundlegendforunderstandingthekōancasethatiscontainedinthetransmissionofthelamprecords,whichincludefolkloreandshamanisticelements.Accordingtothefullernarrativeinthetransmissionsources,priortothecontestregardingthewaterpitcher,Pai‐changhadbeenconsultingwiththegeomancer/wizardSsu‐ma,oneofthemoreintriguingirregularpractitionersinZenlore,aboutwhoshouldtakeoverthenewtemple.Ssu‐masummonedhisoccult,supernaturalpowerstoselectKuei‐shanasthemostappropriatemonk,sothatthecompetitioninthemaincasewasactuallyastagedaffairwithaforegoneconclusionbasedonritualratherthanaspontaneousdisplayofpsychologicalinsightorliteraryflourish.Thisapproachtointerpretationcombinestheemphasisonaspiritualbreakthroughintheinstrumentalandrealizationinterpretationswithafocusonthestruggleforpowerinthedialogue'ssocialandhistoricalsetting.

(p.65) Kuei‐shan'sactisoneofthemostrenownedcasesofanantistructuralexpressioninZenannalsbecauseitbreaksabruptlywiththeconventionalhierarchyandpatternsofdiscourse.Themessageseemstobethattostandoutonecannotdothesameaseveryoneelse.Youneedtohavethecouragetotrynewapproaches,whichmightbeperceivedasoffbeator“crazy.”Thisisarisktakentobeinnovative,whichiseffectivenotasanendinitselfbutonlysolongasindividualityisintegratedwitheccentricityandanoverallcommitmenttothecompletionofgroupgoals.Failingtotaketheopportunitytobeuniquelyinventivewillinthelongrunstymiecommunalachievements.Yet,theWu‐menkuancommentarymakesitclearthatweshouldnotjusttakeitatfacevaluethatKuei‐shanhadanunqualifiedsuccess,bycharging,“HeneverfullycatapultedhimselfoutofthetrapcleverlysetbyPai‐chang.”

Breakingdownstructures,whichgainsKuei‐shanaleadershiproleinthemonasticsystem,onlyworkssuccessfullyifittakesplaceattheappropriatetimeandcontext,whereitcommunicatespersuasivelywithoutseemingarbitraryorcounterproductive.ThenarrativeaboutKuei‐shan,whodoesnotappearasarogueorrenegade,symbolizesthatwhenwordsfailorfallshortofgettingthepointacrosseffectively,agenuinesenseofself‐confidenceandinnovativenessbeyondspeakingthatisbasedonintegrityandinnerdisciplineallowsfordeftnessatbreakingoutofthemoldofhierarchicalstructure.Beforedoingthingsthisway,itisnecessarytohaveexhaustedotheravenuesofcommunicationandtobecertainaboutthemeritsandreasonabilityofanapproachintendedtoabetaproductivereformingofstructure.

“Te‐shanCarriesHisBowl”Theeffectivenessofacomprehensiveapproachtointerpretingkōansthatexpressadelicatebalancebetweenstructureandantistructure,orfollowingandbreakingtherules,isseeninthecase“Te‐shanCarriesHisBowl,”whichisincludedintheTsung‐jung

Zen Writes

Page 25 of 35


luandWu‐menkuancollections.52ThecaseinvolvesthestoryofmasterTe‐shan,whoseemstocommitaratherseriousfauxpasintermsofmonasticetiquetteandisreprimandedbyoneofhisdisciples,Yen‐t'ou,whoaccuseshimofnotunderstandingthe“lastword.”AfteraprivateexchangewithYen‐t'ou,Te‐shanredeemshimselfbygivinganunusualsermon,andhereceivesthedisciple'shighpraise.

TheTZNandHCCinterpretationsbothfocusonthemeaningofthelastword,asfeaturedintheWu‐menkuanversecommentary,anditssignificanceforunderstandingtheroleoflanguage,whichishighlyambiguousandinconclusiveintypicalZenfashion.Acomprehensiveinterpretation,onthe(p.66) otherhand,highlightsthesignificanceofthecaseforunderstandingtheestablishmentofauthorityintheprocessoflineagetransmissionbytakingtheleadfromthecappingphrasesusedintheTsung‐junglucommentary.Theseevokethemaster‐disciplerelationofTe‐shanandYen‐t'ouintermsofthefamilialmodelofparentandchildandintermsofart‐of‐warstrategizingconcerningcommandersandsoldiersfacingopponentsonthefieldofbattle.

ThefollowingtranslationisfromtheTsung‐jungluversion,withthemaincaserecordappearinginboldfaceandthecappingphrasesprovidedbyeditor/commentatorHung‐chihinitalics.Thenarrativeisnearlyidenticalinthetwoversions,butthereisanimportantdifferenceintheopeninglines,whichwillbeexplainedindetailbelow.Thedivisionofthecaseintofivesections,eachaccompaniedbyadiscussionofitssymbolism,isnotapartoftheoriginalrecordortraditionalcommentaries,andrepresentsmywayoforganizingthematerial.

1.Te‐shan'sFauxPas

WhenHsüeh‐fengwasatTe‐shan'stempleworkingasricecook—Ifyoudon'tworkwhenyoung … onedaythemealwaslate,andTe‐shancametotheDharmaHallcarryinghisbowl.— … youwon'thavepeaceofmindwhenold.Hsüeh‐fengsaid,“Oldman,thebellhasn'trungyetandthedrumhasn'tsounded—whereareyougoingwithyourbowl?”—Hemakesthebabyabletoscolditsmother.

AsshowninFigure2.3,thenarrativetakesplaceatthetempleofTe‐shan,whoatthetimewasapparentlyeightyyearsoldandneartheendofhislife,butwhoearlyonhadbeenoneofthebrashestofZenfigures.HewasoriginallyknownforhisintensiveinterestintheDiamondSutraandreferredtohimselfas“KingoftheSutra.”Butaftergettinghiscomeuppanceatthehandsofanelderlylaywomanwhomadeaningeniousphilosophicalwordplay,asdiscussedintheprosecommentaryonPi‐yenlucase4,Te‐shanbegantorelentandseethewisdomoftheZenapproachtotransmissionoutsidethescriptures.FollowingasuccessfulchallengetomasterKuei‐shan,asdiscussedinthemainrecordofPi‐yenlucase4,andthengainingenlightenmentundermasterLung‐t'an,asdescribedincase28oftheWu‐menkuan,Te‐shanhadalengthyandproductivespanleadinghisowntemple.There,hecultivateddisciples,includingHsüeh‐feng,whowasoneofthemostfamouschiefcooksintheearlyhistoryofChineseZen,sothatmanyaspiringmonasticcookswhosawhimasarolemodeltookhisname.

Zen Writes

Page 26 of 35


Asanaccomplishedabbot,Te‐shanshouldhavebeenwellawareandhelpingtoenforcethestrictnessofmonasticrulesregardingattendanceatmealsandsermonsrequiredforabbots,rectors,attendants,monks,andnovices,(p.67) whichforbadeenteringthehalluntilthebellhadbeenrungandthedrumsounded,regardlessofextenuatingcircumstances.AccordingtotheCh'an‐yüanch'ing‐kuei:

Threedrumsequencesarestrucktoindicatethattheabbotisapproachingthehall.Theadministratorsandchiefofficersbowtotheabbotfromtheirpositions.AfterthebellinfrontoftheSamghahallisrung,theassemblydescendsfromtheplatforms.Theabbotentersthehall,bowstotheHolyMonk,andthenbowswiththeassemblysimultaneously.53

ThemaindifferencebetweenthetwoversionsofthecaseisthattheWu‐menkuandoesnotincludeareferencetothelatenessofthemeal,whichmakesTe‐shan'sblunderseemallthemoreseriousandinexcusable.Also,theWu‐menkuanmentionsTe‐shanenteringa“hall,”butnotexplicitlytheDharmaHall,soonecouldassumethatitreferstothedininghall,oneofthesevenmaintemplebuildings.ThisisquiteanimportantdifferencesincetheimplicationofTe‐shangoingintotheDharmaHallintheTsung‐jungluversionisthathehadbypassedenteringthedininghall,assumingthemiddaymealwasnotforthcoming,andwasabouttobeginhisafternoonsermonevenwithoutthemeal.Inthatcase,notonlydoeshehaveareasontobreaktherulesandisnotnecessarilytoblameforagaffe,buthedemonstratesanaggressiveattitudeinshowingupthecookwhowaslateinservingthemeal.

Inanyevent,thiskōanconjuresaquestionalsoaddressedinacoupleofotherWu‐menkuancasesabouttheneedtofollowrulesofetiquettethatseemlikearbitraryrestrictionswithoutintrinsicvalueotherthantoregulatethewaysomemonasticactivitiesareconductedinrelationtoseasonalcyclesandhoursoftheday.Forexample,case26dealswiththeraisingofbambooblinds,whichmarksthechangeofseasons,andincase16Yün‐menasksrhetorically,“Seehowvastandwidetheworldis!Whydoyouputonyourseven‐piecerobeatthesoundofthebell?”Here,Hsüeh‐feng,latemealandall,feelsperfectlyjustifiedinreprimandingthemasterforfailingtocomply.

2.ReturntoHisQuarters

Te‐shanimmediatelyreturnedtotheAbbot'sQuarters.—It'sallinthenotspeaking.

Regardlessofwhoistoblameforthefauxpas,Te‐shanturnsbackfromthehall.AccordingtoRobertAitken'sTZNstyleofinterpretation,thispartofthecasecanbeconsidered“Te‐shan'ssilentteaching,”aboutwhichthereare“manystories,”includingaccountsofhisgivingthirtyblowsofthestick.54(p.68) AitkensuggeststhatthepassagerecallsanotherkōaninvolvingTe‐shanthatisincludedasTsung‐junglucase14,55inwhichadisciple,Huo,asksthemasterachallengingquestion,towhichheresponds,“What?How'sthat?”andthecappingphrasereads,“Swiftthunder—youcan'tcoveryourearsintime.”Huothenproclaims,“Theorderwasforaflyingdragon,butonlya

Zen Writes

Page 27 of 35


lametortoiseshowedup,”andaversecommentreads,“Foolingtheenemyarmyintonotthinkingahead.”Te‐shansaysnothing,butthenextday,Huo'sbehaviorisdeferentialandTe‐shanagainremainssilent,nothavingsaidawordthewholetime.Thecappingphrasereads,“Thetiger'sheadandthetiger'stailaretakenallatonce.”

However,thepassageaboutTe‐shanreturningtohisquartersinthecurrentcaseisopen‐ended,andthisactcouldalsobeinterpretedlesspositivelyasperhapsaretreatinshamefulrecognitionofdefeatoroftheextentofhisblunder.Or,itcouldsimplyrepresentanonconfrontationaloutlookthattakestimetopauseandreflectonhowtoreacttohisunderling,whetheroutofpenitence,ignorance,orindifferencetotherebuke.

3.TheLastWord

Hsüeh‐fengreportedthistoYen‐t'ou.—Thefamilyrebels,thehomeisdisturbed.Yen‐t'ousaid,“EvenTe‐shan,asgreatasheis,doesn'tunderstandthelastword.”—Thefatherisobscuredbytheson—thestraightistherein.

Inthispassage,Yen‐t'outhedisciplefurtherpassesjudgmentonmasterTe‐shan.Yen‐t'ouandHsüeh‐fengareaplayfulpairofmonks,whoseanticsarealsorecordedinPi‐yenlucases51and66.Here,theyhavefunseeminglyattheirteacher'sexpense.Yen‐t'ouisthejuniorpartner,butheisconsideredamanoftalentandresolution,whohelpedtoconfirmtheenlightenmentofHsüeh‐feng,whohadbeenrecommendedtostudywithTe‐shanbyTung‐shanLiang‐chieh,founderoftheTs'ao‐tungschool,indicatingcross‐fertilizationamonglineages.Hsüeh‐fengisknownasamanofeffortwhooftenfaceduncertainty.WhileYen‐t'oudiedatagesixtyandleftonlyonedisciple,whodidnotpropagatethelinewhichquicklydiedout,Hsüeh‐feng'scommunityoffollowersgaverisetotwoprominentlineages,theFa‐yenandtheYün‐menschools.ThelatterincludedYün‐menandhislineage,knownforanemphasisonthe“one‐wordbarrier”(e.g.,WhatisBuddha?Ashit‐stick).AnotherfollowerintheYün‐menlineagewasHsüeh‐tou,whointheeleventhcenturycollectedandwroteversecommentsonthe100casesthatlaterbecamethePi‐yenluwhenitwasfurthereditedbyYüan‐wuin1163.

Itisnotclearwhatthelastwordissupposedtomean,butonewayofunderstandingthisisthatitwouldrepresentastyleofdiscoursethatputsan(p.69) abruptendtoqueries,criticism,andconflictorthatcandecisivelysnuffoutarbitraryquestionsandjudgments.ThisiswhatTe‐shanwasunabletodeliverwhenrebuffedbyhisfollower;instead,hewasstymiedbyparalysis.

4.Retort

Te‐shanhadhisattendantsummonYen‐t'ou,andaskedhim,“Youdon'tapproveofme?”—Hepoursoilonthefire.Yen‐t'outhenwhisperedtohimwhathereallymeant.—Privatewordsamongpeopleareheardasloudasthunderbythegods.Te‐shanthendroppedthematter.—Hestilldoesnotunderstand.

Backinhisroom,Te‐shancanapparentlytellthatsomethingiswrongwithYen‐t'ou,who

Zen Writes

Page 28 of 35


hasbeeninformedbyHsüeh‐tou,andheinquiresaboutthedisciple'sperspectiveonhisleadership.WhateverYen‐t'ousaysprivatelytohisteacherisnotdisclosedinthenarrative,whichindicatesthatthereissomekindofintimate(mitsuintheWu‐menkuanversion)connectionandfamiliaritybetweenmasteranddisciple.ATZNinterpretationwouldseethisexchangeasaprimeexampleofsilenttransmissionassuggestedbythecappingphraseimageofthethunderclapheardbythegods.TherolereversalofhavingYen‐t'ouinitiatetheconversationisaccommodatedbysimilarexamples,suchasPai‐changbeingslappedbyhisdiscipleHuang‐poattheconclusionofthe“WildFox”kōan(Wu‐menkuancase2andTsung‐junglucase8).56Whileonelevelofsilenceisthewhisperingthattakesplacebetweenmasteranddisciple,anotherlevelisrepresentedbythereticenceofTe‐shan,whoonceagaindoesnottaketheopportunitytoputanendtothecommentsofhisfollowers.

5.Te‐shan'sSermon

ThenextdaywhenTe‐shangaveasermonintheDharmaHall,itwasnotthesameastheusualone.—Hesteersbackwardsagainstthewind.Yen‐t'ouclappedandlaughedandsaid,“Happily,theoldmandoesunderstandthelastword.—Theshameofthehouseisexposedtotheoutsideworld.Hereafter,nooneintheworldwillbeabletolayahandonhim.”—Whyishisnoseinmyhands?

Te‐shanapparentlyhasregroupedandisabletodeliveracompellingsermondemonstratingtoYen‐t'outhathereallydoeshavethelastword,afterall,althoughthereaderofthecasehasnoideawhatwasexpressedandwhetheritliveduptoexpectations.TheTsung‐jungluprosecommentary,whichreferstothemasteras“atoothlesstiger”who“stillhasclaws,”is,likethecappingphraseabove,characteristicallydismissiveandcontradictoryofYen‐t'ou'spositiveassessmentinsaying,“Yetthistooisaddingerroruponerror.”Theprose(p.70) commentsalsoindicatethatYen‐t'ousaysthatTe‐shanonlyhas“onlythreeyearstogo,”andsureenough,accordingtotradition,hediedthreeyearslater.ThissuggeststhatYen‐t'ouholdsrealpowerregardlessofhisrank.

Themeritofacomprehensiveinterpretationbecomesclearininterpretingthisfinalpassageofthecaserecord.TheapproachesofTZNandtherealizationthesiswouldcontinuetoemphasizethesignificanceofthelastwordseenintermsoftheparadoxicalrelationbetweenthefirstandlastword,assuggestedbytheWu‐menkuanversecomment:

Ifyouknowthefirstword,Thenyouunderstandthelastword;Thelastandthefirst—Aretheynotthisoneword?

TheWu‐menkuanprosecommentsuggestsintongue‐in‐cheekfashionthatneitherfigurereallygetsthepoint,astheyturnintoanidlePunchandJudyorBertandErniepartnershipoffolly:“Asfarasthelastwordisconcerned,neitherYen‐t'ounorTe‐shan

Zen Writes

Page 29 of 35


haseverseenitinadream.Examiningthem,they'remuchlikepuppetsonastage.”Thefocusremainsonthematteroffacilitywith—aswellasthelimitsof—usingwordsinconnectionwithnowords.

ComprehensiveInterpretationAcomprehensiveinterpretationfocusesnotmerelyonlanguagebutonaction,andarguesthatthemeaningofthecasenarrative'sdenouementisthatconflictanduncertaintyareonceandforallresolved,inthatthecentralZenmonasticritualofdeliveringasermoninthekeytemplespaceoftheDharmaHallisbeingupheld.Te‐shanmayormaynothaveredeemedhimselfthroughthepowerofwords,butheclearlywasabletoreestablishandreasserthisauthorityandhisabilitytocommandhistroopsbythepowerhewieldsinthetemplesystem.Thisinterpretationisreinforcedbythecappingverse'sthemeofbuildingontheanalogyoffamilialrelationsandmaintainingahouse's(orlineage's)reputation.Inatraditionalprosecommentary,You‐kesaid,“Thosewhoconcealanarmytofightbynightdonotsee[Te‐shan].Thosewhoattackoccupiedterritorybydaycanhardlyknow[Yen‐t'ou].Whattheydon'trealizeisthatthebattlecommanderpicksfightsbyday,thewatchcommanderpatrolsthecampbynight.”57Accordingtothis,Te‐shanthemasterstillrulesbynight,whichhastheadvantage,andYen‐t'outhediscipleleadsbyday.

(p.71) ThedifferencewithWu‐menkuancase40isthattheKuei‐shannarrativeendswithantistructure,whereastheTe‐shanrecordopenswithtwoexamples,onedeficient(Te‐shan'smovetothehallbeforetheringingofthebell,whichdisruptstheorderofthings)andtheothersurpassingconventionalroles(Yen‐t'ou'swillingnesstocriticizehismentorinfrontofothers).TheTe‐shancaseendswithareaffirmationofstructure,showingthateveryoneincludingthemastermustfollowtherules,buttherulesaremadetobebrokenbythemaster,whoisnotconsideredanauthenticleaderunlessheknowstheappropriatewayofdoingthis.Te‐shandidnot,byhisownadmissionthroughhisreticence,doittherightwayatfirst.RulesforZenareatonceeverythingandnothing,thenecessarygluethatmakessocietyworkandthechainsinthedungeonthatmustbecastaside.Theyarecarefullycraftedandinvariablyarbitraryandcapricious.

Theweightoftheimageryinthecaserecordsupplementedbytheart‐of‐warstyleofthecommentarysuggestthataneworderneedstobecreatedbasedonthecharismaandspontaneityoftheleader,butthiswillnotprevailunlessthereisacarefulplanforritualimplementationwithinthehallsofthetemplecompound.Thetemplelayoutissufficienttoleaveroomopenforboththebreakingandthereassertingofregulations.TheZenabbotcannotandshouldnotbeboundbyanysystem,whichisarbitrary,butatthesametime,hemustepitomizeandrecognizethatheisnotabovetherulesofthesystem.

DoesthemasterreallyreplacetheBuddha,astheCMKindicates?Whatistherelationoftheabbottootherobjectsofveneration,andhowarethesecommemoratedwithinthemonasticsystem?ExploringthesequestionsconnectsthematterofZenwriteswithZenritesandrights.(p.72)

Notes:

Zen Writes

Page 30 of 35


(1.) Forexample,seeDōgen'sgroupoffivepoemsontheLotusSutra,whichincludes“Colorsofthemountains/Streamsinthevalleys/Oneinall,allinone/Thevoiceandbodyof/OurSakyamuniBuddha,”inStevenHeine,trans.,TheZenPoetryofDōgen:VersesfromtheMountainofEternalPeace(Mt.Tremper,NY:DharmaCommunications,2005),p.109.ThisisbasedonatraditionalversecitedinShōbōgenzō,“Keiseisanshoku”byChang‐tsung,“Thesoundsofthevalleystreamhislongtongue/Thechangingcolorsofthemountainshisblissfulbody/SincelastnightIhaveheard84,000hymns/ButhowcanIexplainthemalltopeoplethefollowingday?”

(2.) SeeStevenKatz,MysticismandPhilosophicalAnalysis(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1978).Katzbeginsonp.1byconsidering,“Mysticsdonotsaywhattheymeananddonotmeanwhattheysay,”andthencitesRumi,“Whenyousay,‘wordsareofnoaccount,’younegateyourownassertionthroughyourwords.Ifwordsareofnoaccount,whydowehearyousaythatwordsareofnoaccount?Afterall,youaresayingthisinwords.”

(3.) JohnR.McRae,TheNorthernSchoolandtheFormationofEarlyCh'anBuddhism(Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,1986),p.257.Also:

Althoughonemaybeabletoascendheaveninbroaddaylight[bythismethod],ifonerelies[only]onthebluewordsofthejade‐[encrusted]books,[one'sefforts]willultimatelycometonaught.Thisismerelyoneconditionedactivityofthisworld,andevenhere[personalinstructionisabsolutely]necessary.Howmuchmoresotheunsurpassable,trueteaching[ofBodhidharma]—howcoulditpossiblybeexplainedinwords?

TheChuanfa‐paochiwasperhapsthefirstinaseriesoftransmissionofthelamptextsthatcontinuedwiththePao‐linchuanof801andof952.BeginningwiththeChing‐techuan‐tengluof1004,therewereseveraldozentextsinthisgenreproducedintheelevenththroughthirteenthcenturies.SeeAlbertWelter,Monks,Rulers,andLiterati:ThePoliticalAscendancyofChanBuddhism(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2006).

(4.) Taishōshinshūdaizōkyō,ed.TakakusuJunjirōandWatanabeKaigyoku,100vols.(Tokyo:Taishōissaikyōkankōkai,1924–1932),47:502c.

(5.) WilliamM.Bodiford,SōtōZeninMedievalJapan(Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,1993),p.143.SeealsoIshikawaRikizan,“TransmissionofKirigami(SecretInitiationDocuments):ASōtōPracticeinMedievalJapan,”inStevenHeineandDaleS.Wright,eds.,TheKōan:TextsandContextsinZenBuddhism(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2000),pp.233–243;andAndōYoshinori,ChūseiZenshūbunsekinokenkyū(Tokyo:Kokushoinkōkai,2000).

(6.) ThisisincludedasthesixthcaseoftheWu‐menkuan(Taishō48:293c).Thethirdandfourthlinesofthemottoare“Pointingdirectlytothehumanmind,/Seeingintoone'sownnatureandbecomingaBuddha.”AccordingtoT.GriffithFoulk,thesewordswereevenputintothemouthofSakyamuniBuddhainsometexts;see“SungControversies

Zen Writes

Page 31 of 35


concerningthe‘SeparateTransmission’ofCh'an,”inPeterN.GregoryandDanielA.Getz,eds.,BuddhismintheSung(Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,1999),p.268.

(7.) SeeAlbertWelter,“Mahakasyapa'sSmile:SilentTransmissionandtheKung‐an(Kōan)Tradition,”inHeineandWright,eds.,TheKōan,pp.75–109.AlsoaccordingtoWelter,“IntheearlySong,themeaningofBodhidharma'scomingfromthewestincreasinglycametobeunderstoodalsointermsof‘aseparatetransmissionoutsidetheteaching’ ”(kyōgebetsuden),inMonks,Rulers,andLiterati,p.201.

(8.) SeeMarioPoceski,TheHongzhouSchoolandtheDevelopmentofTangDynastyChan(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2007).

(9.) SeeLudwigWittgenstein,“Mypropositionsserveaselucidationsinthefollowingway:Onlyhewhounderstandsme,eventuallyrecognizesthemasnonsense,”inTractatusLogico‐Philosophicus,trans.D.F.PearsandB.E.McGuinness(NewYork:Humanities,1961),6.54;seediscussioninHenryRuf,PostmodernRationality,SocialCriticism,andReligion(St.Paul,MN:Paragon,2005),p.94.AnotherprominentexamplewouldbeTheateroftheAbsurdplaywrightEugèneIonesco,whoseworkssuchasRhinocerostendedtodeconstructintowildcaricatureandparody,withlanguageitselfdisintegratingintodisjointedfragmentsofwords.

(10.) HeinrichDumoulin,ZenBuddhism:AHistoryI(IndiaandChina)(NewYork:Macmillan,1987),p.249.

(11.) Wu‐menkuan,case13(Taishō48:294b–c),andTsung‐junglu,case55(Taishō48:189a–190a).

(12.) T.GriffithFoulk,“Myth,Ritual,andMonasticPracticeinSungCh'anBuddhism,”inPatriciaB.EbreyandPeterN.Gregory,eds.,ReligionandSocietyinT'angandSungChina(Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,1993),p.180.

(13.) Welter,Monks,Rulers,andLiterati,p.126.

(14.) DaleS.Wright,PhilosophicalMeditationsonZenBuddhism(NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998),p.17n.41.

(15.) Ibid.

(16.) Foulk,“Myth,Ritual,andMonasticPractice,”p.176.SeeMartinCollcutt,FiveMountains:TheRinzaiZenInstitutioninMedievalJapan(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1981),p.195.

(17.) Dōgenmentionsthisinseveralplaces,includingShōbōgenzōzuimonki,fascicle3(intraditionaledition),Shōbōgenzō,“Shohōjissō,”andEiheikōroku2.128.Althoughitisdifficulttodeterminewhetherthispracticewasasuniqueandextraordinaryasheclaims,DōgenhadtraveledtoseveraloftheChineseFiveMountainstemplesandthereforehadacomparativeperspective.

Zen Writes

Page 32 of 35


(18.) SeeTaigenDanLeightonandShohakuOkumura,trans.,Dōgen'sExtendedRecord:ATranslationoftheEiheiKōroku(Boston:Wisdom,2004).

(19.) TheJapaneseZenversionwassomewhatdifferentfromtheearlierseven‐hallstyledatingbacktotheperiodofNaraBuddhism,whichincludedthepagoda(tō),goldenBuddhaHall(kondō),LectureHall(kōdō),BellTower(shōrō),sutrarepository(kyōzō),monks'dormitories(sōbō),andrefectory(jikidō).Thiswasbecauseofanewemphasisonseveralkeyfacilities,includingtheDharmaHallandSamghaHall,aswellastheAbbot'sQuarters(althoughthiswasnotconsideredoneofthesevenmainhalls),andtheeliminationofthepagoda,BellTower,andsutrarepositoryasmainbuildings,althoughthelattertwowereoftenincluded.Also,DōgenwasapparentlyofferedbyHōjōTokiyoritheopportunitytoleadKenchōjiinthethen‐capitalcityofKamakura,buthedeclined,preferringinsteadtostayatEiheijiintheremotemountains.

(20.) Foulk,“Myth,Ritual,andMonasticPractice,”pp.163–164.Also:“TheeliteranksofZenmastersintheSungincludednotonlymeditationspecialistsbutalsoPureLanddevotees,Tantricritualists,expertsonmonasticdiscipline,exegetesofsutraandphilosophicalliterature,poets,artists,andevenmonkswithleaningstowardNeo‐Confucianism”(p.161).

(21.) InChina,wheretherewasalimitedsenseofsectarianidentity,inmanycasesCh'antempleswerecloselyaffiliatedortheabbaciesrotatedbackandforthwiththeLüandT'ien‐t'aischools.ButinJapan,therewasaneither‐orsituation,andastheTendaiandShingonsectsbegandyingoutinsomeareasinthemedievalperiod,manyofthetempleswereconvertedtoZen,especiallytheSōtōsectinthenorthernprovincesoutsideofKyoto.

(22.) ThomasCleary,trans.,BookofSerenity:OneHundredZenDialogues(Hudson,NY:Lindisfarne,1990).

(23.) Wright,PhilosophicalMeditationsonZenBuddhism,p.10.

(24.) Citedfrom“AHistoryoftheReligiousBeliefsandPhilosophicalOpinionsinChinafromtheBeginningtothePresentTime,”inBernardFaure,ChanInsightsandOversights(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1993),p.42.FaurenotesthatWiegerwasaformerProtestantturnedJesuitwhoshowedcontemptforChinese“paganism”andsawCh'anasanoffshootofVedantism,citingtheoraclesofBrahman.

(25.) MishimaYukio,TempleoftheGoldenPavilion(NewYork:Perigee,1959),pp.244and245.

(26.) AlanCole,PatriarchsonPaper:TheGradualBirthofChineseBuddhasinTang‐EraLiterature(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,forthcoming),p.357,intypescriptversion.

(27.) BurtonWatson,trans.,TheCompleteWorksofChuangTzu(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1968),p.302.WittgensteinendstheTractatus:“Whereofonecannot

Zen Writes

Page 33 of 35


speak,thereofonemustbesilent.”

(28.) CitedinZhangLongxi,TheTaoandtheLogos:LiteraryHermeneutics,EastandWest(Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,1992),p.124(withsomemodifications).

(29.) VictorSōgenHori,ZenSand:TheBookofCappingPhrasesforKōanPractice(Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,2003),p.56.

(30.) MarkC.Taylor,Erring:APostmodernA/theology(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1987),p.103.

(31.) http://home.wlv.ac.uk/~fa1871/surrext.html(accessedAugust28,2006).

(32.) BecauseofCarroll'spersonalpredilections,aFreudianreadingofhisnonsensewritingsasawayofsuppressingsociallyunacceptablethoughtpatternsinchildlikesyntaxprobablycarriesweight.

(33.) LewisCarroll,Alice'sAdventuresinWonderlandandThroughtheLooking‐Glass,ed.HughHaughton(NewYork:Penguin,1998),p.xiv.SeealsoJackieWullschlager,InventingNeverland:TheLivesandFantasiesofLewisCarroll,EdwardLear,J.M.Barrie,KennethGrahameandA.A.Milne(NewYork:FreePress,1995);andJohnF.Lehmann,LewisCarrollandtheSpiritofNonsense(Nottingham,England:UniversityofNottinghamPress,1972).HaughtonpointsoutthatAlice,whoasks,“WhointheworldamI?That'sthegreatpuzzle!”whiletheCheshireCatgrins,“We'reallmadhere,”consistentlyandmatter‐of‐factlydismissesherinterlocutorsasnonsensical,butthisdoesnotmeantheirwilddisorderhasnoimpactorintrusiononher.

(34.) Haughton,“Introduction,”inCarroll,Alice'sAdventuresinWonderland,p.1.

(35.) Carroll,Alice'sAdventuresinWonderland,p.186.Humptyalsosayshe“pays”wordstoworkforhimandthathecan“explainallthepoemsthatwereinvented—andagoodmanythathaven'tbeeninventedjustyet”(p.187).

(36.) Carroll,Alice'sAdventuresinWonderland,p.83.

(37.) QuotesinthisparagrapharefromT.S.Eliot,TheWasteLandandOtherPoems(NewYork:Barnes&NobleClassics,2005),p.xxi.

(38.) JohnCage,Silence:LecturesandWritings(Middletown,CT:WesleyanUniversityPress,1961),p.xi.

(39.) Welter,Monks,Rulers,andLiterati,p.186.

(40.) Foulk,“SungControversiesconcerningthe‘SeparateTransmission’ofCh'an,”p.260.

(41.) VictorSōgenHoriadoptsandappliesatermfirstusedbyHee‐JinKimregardingDōgen'suseofthekōan,whichwasusedinmanywaysincontrasttotheLin‐chi/Rinzai

Zen Writes

Page 34 of 35


schoolapproachtotheRinzaiZenmonasticcurriculum.BothHoriandKimagreeintheircritiqueof“theinstrumentalistideathatakōanismerelyanonrationalinstrumentforabreakthroughtoanoncognitivepureconsciousness,”accordingto“KōanandKenshōintheRinzaiZenCurriculum,”inHeineandWright,eds.,TheKōan,p.281.HoricitesHee‐JinKim,“TheReasonofWordsandLetters:DōgenandKōanLanguage,”inWilliamR.LaFleur,ed.,DōgenStudies(Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,1985),pp.54–82.

(42.) Watson,trans.,TheCompleteWorksofChuangTzu,p.304.

(43.) BernardFaure,“FairandUnfairLanguageGamesinChan/Zen,”inStevenT.Katz,ed.,MysticismandLanguage(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1992),p.173.

(44.) Pi‐yenlu,case73(Taishō48:200c–201c).

(45.) KatsukiSekida,trans.,TwoZenClassics:MumonkanandHekiganroku(NewYork:Weatherhill,1977),p.338.

(46.) ŌgawaTakashi,“Hekiganrokuzōkō(5),”Zenbunka179(2003):23–31.

(47.) JohnC.H.Wu,TheGoldenAgeofZen(Taipei:UnitedPublishingCenter,1975),p.103.

(48.) SeeStevenHeine,OpeningaMountain:KōansoftheZenMasters(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2002);andHeine,WhiteCollarZen:UsingZenPrinciplestoOvercomeObstaclesandAchieveYourCareerGoals(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2005),pp.107–116.

(49.) Wu‐menkuan,case40(Taishō48:298a);alsoNishimuraEshin,ed.,Mumonkan(Tokyo:Iwanamibunko,1994),pp.152–155.

(50.) Pi‐yenlu,case25(Taishō48:165c–166c);alsoIriyaYoshitakaetal.,eds.,Hekiganroku,3vols.(Tokyo:Iwanamishoten,1992–1996),I:321–332.

(51.) SeeBernardFaure,TheRhetoricofImmediacy(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,1991);andT.GriffithFoulk,“TheFormandFunctionofKōanLiterature,”inHeineandWright,eds.,TheKōan,pp.15–45.

(52.) Taishō48:294b–candTaishō48:262a–c,respectively.Thetranslationis,withminorstylisticchanges,takenfromCleary,BookofSerenity,pp.233–236;theWu‐menkuanversionistakenfromChing‐techuan‐tenglu,vol.16,undertheheadingofYen‐t'ou,whoisalsoreferencedintheTsu‐t'angchi,vol.7;andtheTsung‐jungluversionisfromWu‐tenghui‐yüan,vol.6.Te‐shanisreferencedinTsu‐t'angchi,vol.5,andChing‐techuan‐tenglu,vol.15.

(53.) Yifa,TheOriginsofBuddhistMonasticCodesinChina:AnAnnotatedTranslationandStudyoftheChanyuanQinggui(Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,2002),p.124.Inaddition,“Afterthemiddaymeal,thebellisstruckinfrontoftheSamghahall.

Zen Writes

Page 35 of 35


Everyoneisseated,andthepersonwhopresidesovertheDharmastandsonthesouthsideofthefrontgate,facingtheHolyMonk”(p.183).

(54.) SeediscussioninRobertAitken,trans.,TheGatelessBarrier:TheWu‐MenKuan(Mumonkan)(NewYork:NorthPoint,1991),pp.91–92.

(55.) Taishō48:235c–236a.

(56.) SeeStevenHeine,ShiftingShape,ShapingText:PhilosophyandFolkloreintheFoxKōan(Honolulu:UniversityofHawaiiPress,1999).

(57.) CitedinThomasCleary,NoBarrier:UnlockingtheZenKoan(NewYork:Bantam,1993),p.63.AlsoBao‐ensaid:

Ifyouacceptunrealitiesandtakeinechoes,youmiss[Te‐shan].Ifyousuppressthestrongandhelptheweak,youbury[Yen‐t'ou].Itellyoufrankly,foranexampleoftheproverb,“Whentheteacherisexcellent,theapprenticesarestrong,”creditgoesto[Te‐shan]andhisdisciples[Hsüeh‐feng]and[Yen‐t'ou].Expertiseisdemonstratedinthehandsofexperts;whoknowsbeyondtheknowledgeofconnoisseurs?

Accessbroughttoyouby: MINITEX