chapter 4
(Chinese translation).
[f73] Samyutta XII., 65, Nagara; cf. also one of the _Prajñā-pāramitā sūtras_ which is known as one preached by Mañjuśrī (Nanjo Catalogue, No. 21). In the Sutra we find that the Buddha, after mentioning the simile of a gem-digger, makes reference to a man who feels overwhelmed with delight when people talk pleasantly about the old towns and villages once visited by himself. The same sort of a delightful feeling is expressed by one who will listen to the discourse on Prajñāpāramitā and understand it; for he was in his past lives present at the assembly which was gathered about the Buddha delivering sermons on the same subject. That the understanding of the doctrine of Prajñāpāramitā is a form of memory is highly illuminating when considered in relation to the theory of Enlightenment as advanced here.
That the ushering of Enlightenment is accompanied with the feeling of return or remembrance is also unmistakably noted by the writer of the _Kena-Upanishad_ (VI., 50):
“Now in respect to the Atman: It is as though something forces its way into consciousness And consciousness suddenly remembers— Such a state of mind illustrates the awakening of knowledge of the Atman.”
Sonadanda the Brahman had the following to say when he grasped the meaning of the Buddha’s discourse on the characteristics of the true Brahman (Rhys David’s translation): “Most excellent, oh Gotama, most excellent! Just as if a man were to set up that which has been thrown down, or were to reveal that which has been hidden away, or were to point out the right road to him who has gone astray, or were to bring a light into the darkness so that those who had eyes could see external forms—just even so has the truth been made known to me, in many a figure, by the venerable Gotama.”
[f74] _Buddhacarita_, translated by E. B. Cowell, pp. 131–132.
[f75] Lefmann’s edition, p. 289.
[f76] _Ariyapapariyesana-sutta_, Majjhima-Nikāya, XXVI., p. 167.
[f77] Used to designate the school which upholds the doctrine of enlightenment (_sambodhi_).
[f78] This translation is not at all satisfactory.
[f79] Jōshu (778—897) was one of the early masters of Zen in the T‘ang dynasty when it began to flourish with its vigorous freshness. He attained to a high age of one hundred and twenty. His sermons were always short and to the point, and his answers are noted for their being so natural and yet so slippery, so hard to catch.
[f80] _Six Essays by Bodhi-Dharma_[4.25] is the book in which the so-called writings of Bodhi-Dharma are collected. See also the Essay “On Satori” which follows.
[f81] For Tao-hsüan‘s edition in the original Chinese, see Note 4.28 in the Appendix.
[f82] This is the most significant phrase in Dharma’s writing. I have left it untranslated, for later this will be explained fully.
[f83] The author of this story or prefatory note is T‘an-lin (Donrin), who, according to Dr. Tokiwa, of the Tokyo Imperial University, was a learned scholar partaking in the translation of several Sanskrit works. He is also mentioned in connection with Yeka (Hui-k‘ê) in the biography of the latter by Tao-hsüan. If Donrin were more of a scholar as we can see by this identification than a genuine Zen master, it was quite natural for him to write down this “Meditation on Four Acts,” which mainly appeals as it stands to the scholarly interpretation of Zen. While the doctrine of _Pi-kwan_ is emphatically Zen, there is much in the “Meditation” that lends itself to the philosophising of Zen.
[f84] Translated into Chinese during the Northern Liang dynasty which lasted A.D. 397–439. The translator’s name is lost.
[f85] 大乘壁觀功業最高
[f86] We read in Tao-hsüan’s _Biographies_ that wherever Bodhi-Dharma stayed he taught people in his Zen doctrine, but as the whole country at the time was deeply plunged into scholastic discussions, there was a great deal of slanderous talk against meditation when they learned of Bodhi-Dharma’s message.
[f87] Is it possible that this passage has some reference to the _Vajrasamādhi_ where Bodhisattva Mahābala speaks of a “flaccid mind” and a “strong mind”? The former which is possessed by most common people “pants” (or gasps or hankers) very much, and prevents them from successfully attaining to the Tathāgata-dhyāna, while the “strong mind” is characteristic of one who can enter upon the realm of reality (_bhūtakoṭi_). As long as there are “pantings” (or gaspings) in the mind, it is not free, it is not liberated, and cannot identify itself with the suchness of reason. The mind must be “strong” or firm and steady, self-possessed and concentrating, before it is ready for the realisation of Tathāgata-dhyāna—a dhyana going far beyond the reach of the so-called four dhyānas and eight samādhis.
[f88] This subject was treated in another place, though rather sketchily, and will be further elaborated later in an independent essay.
[f89] In this connection I wish to make some remarks against certain scholars who consider the philosophy of Śūnyatā to be really the foundation of Zen. Such scholars fail utterly to grasp the true purport of Zen which is first of all an experience and not at all a philosophy or dogma. Zen can never be built upon any set of metaphysical or psychological views; the latter may be advanced after the Zen experience has taken place, but never before. The philosophy of the Prajñāpāramitā can never precede Zen, but must always follow it. Buddhist scholars like those at the time of Dharma are too apt to identify teaching and life, theory and experience, description and fact. When this confusion is allowed to grow, Zen Buddhism will cease to yield an intelligent and satisfactory interpretation. Without the fact of Enlightenment under the Bodhi-tree near the Nairañjanā, no Nāgārjunas could ever hope to write a single book on the Prajñā philosophy.
[f90] As I stated before, there is a confusion between Dharma’s _mien-pi_ habit of sitting and his doctrine of the _pi-kuan_ meditation. The confusion dates quite early, and even at the time of the author of the _Records_ the original meaning of _pi-kuan_, wall-contemplation, must have been lost.
[f91] Sometimes this man is said to be a civilian and sometimes a soldier embracing Confucianism.
[f92] As one can readily see, this story is more or less fictitious. I mean Kuang’s standing in the snow and cutting-off of his arm in order to demonstrate his earnestness and sincerity. Some think that the snow story and that of self-mutilation do not belong to that of Kuang, but borrowed from some other sources, as Tao-hsüan makes no reference to them in his book. The loss of the arm was due to a party of robbers who attacked Kuang after his interview with Dharma. We have no way to verify these stories either way. The whole setting however is highly dramatic, and there must have been once in the history of Zen some necessity to interweave imagination largely with facts, whatever they may be.
[f93] According to Hsieh-sung, the author of the _Right Transmission of the Law_, Bodhi-Dharma has here followed Nāgārjuna in the anatomy of Zen-understanding. For Nāgārjuna says in his famous commentary on the _Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra_, “Moral conduct is the skin, meditation is the flesh, the higher understanding is the bone, and the mind subtle and good is the marrow.” “This subtle mind,” says Hsieh-sung, is what is secretly transmitted from the Buddha to his successors in the faith. He then refers to Chih-I of the Sui dynasty who regards this mind as the abode of all the Buddhas and as the middle way in which there is neither unity nor multiplicity and which can never be adequately expressed in words.
[f94] According to this, there must have been a special volume of sermons and letters by Hui-k‘ê, which were compiled evidently by his disciples and admirers before they were put down in writing and thoroughly revised by the author himself. In the case of Bodhi-Dharma too, according to Tao-hsüan, his sayings were apparently in circulation in the day of Tao-hsüan, that is, early in the T‘ang dynasty.
[f95] Understood by some to be leprosy.
[f96] In the _Vimalakīrti_,