Let me ask Xuansha now: What do you regard as too close? A fist? An eyeball? From now on, do not say what is too close is not worth examining.
Yangshan said, The first two times Daer was dealing with an object of mind. But later, Huizhong entered receptive samadhi. That’s why Daer could not see him. Although his fame as Small Shakyamuni prevailed in India, his statement is completely wrong. It is not that merging with the object of mind and receptive samadhi are different. So he should not have said that Daer had not seen Huizhong because merging with the object of mind and receptive samadhi are different. Thus, although Yangshan presented a reason why Daer had not seen Huizhong the third time, his statement was not yet a [correct] statement.
If one did not see another in receptive samadhi, receptive samadhi would not manifest and actualize receptive samadhi. If Yangshan assumed that Daer had known Huizhong’s whereabouts the first two times, he could be someone who understood buddha dharma.
Daer did not know or see Huizhong’s whereabouts the third time, or the first two times. As Yangshan made such a statement, neither Daer nor Yangshan knew Huizhong’s whereabouts.
Let me ask Yangshan: where is Huizhong now? When Yangshan is about to speak, I will give him a shout.
Xuansha criticized Daer by saying, Did you actually see Huizhong the first two times? This statement appears to express what needs to be expressed. But Xuansha ought to examine his own statement. This is a good statement. But it is like seeing without seeing. Thus, it is not right.
Xuedou, Zen Master Mingjiao, said upon hearing Xuansha, You lost. You lost. Xuedou should have said so if he had approved Xuansha. He should not have said so if he did not.
Haihui Shouduan said, If Huizhong was on top of Daer’s nostrils, why was it difficult to see? Because Daer did not know that Huizhong was inside his eyeball. He only discussed the third time. He should have denied Daer’s seeing of Huizhong the first two times, but he didn’t. How could he know that Huizhong was on top of Daer’s nose or inside his eyeball?
As Haihui said this, we should say that he did not hear Huizhong. Daer did not have nostrils or an eyeball. Even if he had his eyeball and nostrils, if Huizhong had entered Daer’s eyeball and nostrils, they would have exploded. If they had exploded, they would not have been Hui-zhong’s cave or basket [abode].
None of these five masters was clear about Huizhong’s teaching. Huizhong is a buddha who excelled in his time, a tathagata of the world. He had clarified and authentically received transmission of the Buddha’s treasury of the true dharma eye. Certainly maintaining the soapberry-pit [complete] eye, he transmitted dharma to himself, who was buddha, and to others who were buddhas.
Although Huizhong practiced simultaneously with Shakyamuni Buddha, he also practiced simultaneously with the Seven Original Buddhas. He attained the way before the King of the Empty Eon, after the King of the Empty Eon, and at the very time of the King of the Empty Eon.
Naturally, Huizhong abides in the Saha World, but his Saha World is not necessarily in the world of phenomena, or in the entire world of the ten directions. Shakyamuni Buddha, who presides over the Saha World, will not take away or hinder Huizhong’s land. It is just like buddha ancestors from the past and future who will not rob or hinder each other. This is so, because attaining the way of buddha ancestors from the past and future is totally immersed in attaining the way.
Clearly understand that Daer’s not knowing Huizhong can be a proof that shravakas and pratyeka-buddhas in the Lesser Vehicles cannot even come close to buddha ancestors. Study the meaning of Huizhong’s criticism of Daer.
If Huizhong’s whereabouts had been guessed the first two times and he had criticized Daer the third time, it would not have been a point of teaching. Guessing two out of three would be no different from guessing all three times. This would not be a criticism. If Huizhong had criticized in this way, Daer would not have been criticized for complete ignorance. What Daer guessed would have been Huizhong’s shame. If so, who would have trusted Huizhong? People would have criticized him for what Daer had guessed.
Huizhong’s intention was to criticize Daer for never knowing his whereabouts, his thoughts, his body and mind, these three times. He criticized Daer for not having seen, heard, or studied buddha dharma. Because of this intention, Huizhong asked the same question three times.
First Daer said, You are the teacher of the nation, reverend. Why are you in the West River enjoying the racing boats? But Huizhong did not utter words. He did not admit that Daer knew his whereabouts. He just kept asking the same question. Without knowing the true meaning of his intention, for hundreds of years after Huizhong, masters of various places have mistakenly expressed their opinions.
None of these five masters’ statements express Huizhong’s intention, nor do they fit the meaning of buddha dharma. What a pity that the old gimlets before and after are all mistaken!
If you say that there is the art of seeing others’ minds in buddha dharma, there should be the art of seeing others’ bodies, the art of seeing others’ fists, and the art of seeing others’ eyeballs. If so, there should be the art of seeing through the mind of the self and the art of seeing through the body of the self. And if so, the self taking up the mind of the self is the art of seeing through the mind of the self. To manifest such a statement is the art of seeing others’ minds, by the self and by the mind.
Now ask: “Is it all right to take up the art of seeing others’ minds?” Or, “Is it all right to take up the art of seeing through the mind of the self?” Answer quickly. Answer quickly.
Setting these questions aside, “You have attained my marrow” is no other than the art of seeing others’ minds.
Presented to the assembly of the Daibutsu Monastery, Echizen Province, on the fourth day, the seventh month, the third year of the Kangen Era [1245].
81
KING WANTS THE SAINDHAVA
EXPRESSING WITH WORDS and without words is like a wisteria vine entwined around a tree, herding a donkey and a horse, or penetrating water and cloud.
Thus, the World-Honored One said in the Great Maha Pari-nirvana Sutra:
It is like a great king telling his courtiers to bring the saindhava. The word saindhava indicates any of four things: water, salt, cup, or horse. These four things are called by the same name.
A wise courtier understood this word well. When the king was about to wash his hands and wanted the saindhava, the courtier would bring water. When the king was about to have a meal and wanted the saindhava, the courtier would bring some salt. When the king finished eating and asked for the saindhava so he could have a drink, the courtier would bring the cup. When the king desired to go out and requested the saindhava, the courtier would bring the horse.
This wise courtier thoroughly understood the great king’s subtle use of this word.
This story of the king wanting the saindhava and the courtier bringing it has been handed down for a long time. It has been transmitted just like a dharma robe.
As the World-Honored One did not fail to bring it up, his descendants often quoted him. I suspect that those who practice together with the World-Honored One journey with the saindhava. Those who do not practice together with the World-Honored One should buy sandals and take one step of the journey to understand it.
The saindhava subtly permeates the house of buddha ancestors, just as it did in the house of the great king.
Hongzhi, Old Buddha of Mount Tiantong, Qingyuan Prefecture of Great Song, ascended the teaching seat and spoke to the assembly:
A monk asked Zhaozhou, ‘What about the moment the king wants the saindhava?’
Zhaozhou bent his body forward and held his hands together.
Xuedou later commented: “When the king wanted salt, the courtier brought the horse.”
Xuedou established a house one hundred years ago. Zhaozhou was an old buddha who lived for one hundred twenty years. If Zhaozhou was right, Xuedou was not right. If Xuedou was right, Zhaozhou was not right.
Say it now. Ultimately, what is this?
I cannot help adding comments. If there is a hairbreadth of discrepancy, I would miss it by ten thousand li.
Even if you understand it, it is like scaring a snake by hitting the grass. Even if you don’t understand it, it is like burning paper coins to attract the spirit of the dead. If you don’t plow an unattended field, it will be like Old Monk Juzhi [who would always hold up one finger]. I just let my hand take it up.
When Rujing, my late master, ascended the teaching seat, he would often mention Old Buddha Xuedou. The only one who encountered Xuedou was Rujing, my late master, Old Buddha. At the time of Xue-dou, there was someone called Zonggao, Zen Master Dahui of Mount Jing, a remote descendant of Nanyue. People all over Song China think he equaled or even excelled Xuedou. This mistake was made because monks and laypeople in Song China are shallow in their studies and their eyes are not clear; they do not discern true persons, nor do they have the power to discern themselves.
Hongzhi’s words expressed the true heart. Thus, study the meaning of Zhaozhou bent forward and held his hands together. At this very moment, is it the king wanting the saindhava, or is it the courtier bringing the saindhava?
Study Xuedou’s words, When the king wanted salt, the courtier brought the horse. Wanting salt and bringing the horse are also the king wanting the saindhava and the courtier wanting the saindhava.
The World-Honored One wanted the saindhava and Mahakashyapa smiled. Bodhidharma wanted the saindhava and his four disciples brought the horse, the salt, the water, and the cup. Study the key point that when the horse, the salt, the water, and the cup want the saindhava, the horse is brought and the water is brought.
One day Nanquan saw Deng Yinfeng coming. He pointed to a water jar and said, “That jar is an object. There is water in it. Bring me the water without moving the object.”
Deng Yinfeng brought the jar and poured out the water in front of Nanquan.
Nanquan shut up.
When Nanquan wanted water, the ocean dried out to the bottom. When Deng Yinfeng brought the jar, he tilted it and poured out the water. Thus, investigate water in an object and an object in water. Water has not moved, the object has not moved.
Xiangyan, Great Master Xideng, was asked by a monk, “What is the meaning of the king wanting the saindhava?”
Xiangyan said, “Get over here.”
The monk got closer.
Xiangyan said, “Human stupidity is deadly.”
Now, let me ask you: do the words by Xiangyan, Get over here, indicate wanting the saindhava or bringing the saindhava? Tell me. I ask you.
Responding to Xiangyan’s words, the monk got closer. Was it what Xiangyan wanted? Was it what Xiangyan brought forth? Had it been just as expected by Xiangyan? If it had not been expected, Xiangyan would not have said, Human stupidity is deadly.
Even if these words were Xiangyan’s utmost statement, he could not have avoided the lack of vitality. It sounds like the commander of a lost battle boasting about the fight.
Expounding yellow and speaking in detail of black [expressing this way and that], through head top and eye, is the wanting and the bringing of the saindhava. Who doesn’t know about taking up a staff and taking up a whisk? And yet, this cannot be done by those who try to keep a stringed instrument in tune by gluing down its movable bridges [causing a lack of flexibility]. As they do not understand the effect of gluing down the bridges, they do not have the capacity to keep the koto in tune.
One day the World-Honored One ascended the teaching seat.
Manjushri struck a bell with a mallet and said to the assembly, “Contemplate the Dharma King’s teaching. The Dharma King’s teaching is just like this.”
The World-Honored One descended the seat.
Xuedou Zhongxian, Zen Master Mingjiao, commented on this story: “In the assembly of sages, only masters know that the dharma of the Dharma King is not like that. If there had been a person of the saindhava in the assembly, how would Manjushri have struck the bell with his mallet?”
Thus, Xuedou suggested in this statement that if this single mallet is entirely without fault, both striking and not striking are dropped away without fault. If it is so, a single striking of the mallet is the saindhava.
If you are a person of thusness, you are a person of the saindhava in the assembly [of the Buddha]. This being so, the dharma of the Dharma King is thus. Activating the twelve hours of the day is to want the saindhava. Being activated by the twelve hours of the day is to want the saindhava. Want a fist and bring a fist. Want a whisk and bring a whisk.
Those who are called elders in monasteries in China, however, have never dreamed of the saindhava. How painful! How terrible that the ancestral way is declining! Don’t be negligent in your endeavor of the way. Receive and maintain the buddha ancestors’ life vein.
For example, ask, “What is buddha?” Or say, “Mind is itself buddha.” What does it mean? Is it not the saindhava?
Thoroughly investigate who is “Mind is itself buddha.” Who knows the poundings and cracklings of the saindhava?
Presented to the assembly of the Daibutsu Monastery on the twenty-second day, the tenth month, the third year of the Kangen Era [1245].
EIHEI MONASTERY PERIOD
1246–1253
82
INSTRUCTIONS ON KITCHEN WORK
Presented to the assembly on the sixth day, the eighth month, the fourth year of the Kangen Era [1246].
Regarding the method of serving meals to the community of monks, it is said [in the Guidelines for Zen Monasteries], “Make respect the essence of this pure practice.”
The method that has been authentically transmitted from faraway India to neighboring China, after the pari-nirvana of the Tathagata, is to serve the offerings from the devas to the Buddha and monks, and to dedicate the kingly meals to the Buddha and monks. In addition, there are meals offered from the households of wealthy families and lay practitioners, and also from the households of those in the merchant and untouchable classes.
Such offerings should be equally respected and handled with utmost care. The deepest bows and the most venerated words among humans and devas should be employed for serving the food. Even on a deep and remote mountain the authentic manner and speech found in the monastery kitchen should be maintained. This is how humans and devas learn the buddha dharma.
Call the morning meal onkayu [the honorific form of kayu], and do not bluntly call it kayu. Call the midday meal ontoki [the honorific form of toki], and do not call it toki. Call the midday meal time saiji [in a formal way].
Say “Yone mairaseyo” or “Shirome maira seyo” [“Please serve the rice” in a formal way], and don’t say “Yone tsuke yo” [“Put the rice on” in a disrespectful way]. Say “Jomai shi maira seyo” [“Please clean the rice” in a formal way], and do not say “Yone kase” [“Wash the rice” in a disrespectful way].
Say “Osai wo eri maira seyo” [“Please select vegetables (in the honorific form) for cooking”], and don’t say “Sai ere” [“Pick vegetables”]. Say “Oshiru no mono, shi mairase yo” [“Please cook the soup” in a respectful way], but don’t say “Shiru niyo.” Say “On atsunomono shi mairase yo,” [“Make hot vegetables,” in the honorific form] and don’t say “Atsumono seyo.”
Say “Ontoki [or] onkayu wa mumase sase tamai taru” (“The midday meal or the morning meal is fully cooked” in an honorific form). All the materials being prepared for the midday or morning meals should be referred to with respect in this way. Being disrespectful to materials causes disaster and brings forth no merit.
When you prepare the midday or morning meal, don’t blow onto the rice, vegetables, or any other food. Do not let the sleeves of your work clothes touch any food, even food that is dry.
Do not touch the utensils or food for the midday or morning meal with the hand you have used to touch your head or face; first wash your hands. From the time you select good rice grains until the time you cook the rice and vegetables, always wa
sh your hands if you happen to scratch yourself.
When you cook, chant lines from a sutra or words of a buddha ancestor. Do not make worldly or unnecessary conversation.
Use honorific forms of verbs for describing how to handle rice, vegetables, salt, and soy sauce; do not use plain language for this.
When passing by food prepared for the morning or midday meal, monks and workers should make a standing bow toward the food with hands joined together. Dropped grains of rice or pieces of vegetables should be used later. Do not disrupt the meal serving [by picking them up and trying to use them right away].
Carefully protect the tools for cooking meals, and do not use them for anything else. Do not let those from lay households touch the tools before they have washed their hands. Purify unwashed vegetables and fruit from lay households with water, incense, and fire before you offer them to the three treasures and the assembly of monks.
Nowadays, in monasteries on various mountains of Great Song China, when bean cakes, milk cakes, or steamed cakes are brought from lay households, they are steamed again and then offered to the assembly of monks. This is to purify the food; without this procedure the food is not offered to the monks.
These are some of the many guidelines. Grasp the essential meaning of them and practice them in the kitchen. Do not be negligent.
Treasury of the True Dharma Eye Page 89
