The Case
One day in master Nansen’s temple two group of monks were arguing over a cat. Nansen came across them, grabbed the cat and said, ‘if you can say one true word about the cat I won’t kill it.’ The monks were silent and Nansen cut the cat in two.
This koan story also appears as case 14 in ‘The Gateless Gate,’ which was compiled about 100 years after ‘The Blue Cliff’ record and which has a coda. In that coda, Master Joshu, who is Nansen’s successor, has been away whilst this incident happened. Master Nansen relates the incident to him and Nansen says, ‘what would you have said?’ Joshu without saying anything, takes off his sandals, puts them on his head and walks out. Nansen approvingly says, ‘if you had been there the cat would have been saved.’
Dogen comments extensively on this Koan in the ‘Zuimonki,’ where he imagines himself in the position of Nansen and the position of the monks.
In the position of Nansen, he would actually sharpen the monk’s dilemma by saying to them, ‘whether or not you can say a true word, I will cut the cat.’ But then the teaching purpose having been served, he would simply let the cat go.
From the position of the monks he would have challenged Nansen by saying ‘you can cut the cat in two but why don’t you cut the cat in one?’ From this brilliant proposition we can see why Dogen says that Nansen cuts the cat in two with the sword.The other stories refer to a knife or don’t say how the cat was cut. However, so far as a sword is concerned, the only ‘person’ in the monastery likely to have a sword is Manjushri ( The Bodhisattva of wisdom) whose statue we usually find on the altar.
Manjushri is wielding the sword which cuts delusion. From Dogen’s perspective the cutting of delusion is the restoration of wholeness. Manjushri is mounted on a lion, a very big cat.
Manjushri is the Bodhisattva of wisdom, but ‘wisdom’ is something of a misnomer because what is translated as wisdom is – prajna – pre-knowing which is equivalent to -hishiro – before thinking or beyond thinking that we were talking of previously. The point Dogen is making is that by making the cat an object, both the monks and arguably Nansen have already cut the cat in two; because they have created the cat as an object of thought and discrimination in the world, and the restoration of the wholeness of prajna is what cuts the world and the cat into one.
References
The following references relate to these Koan Commentaries given by John as Kusen:
Blue Cliff Record, Case 63
Book of Serenity, Case 9 (adapted)
Once Ejo asked: “What is meant by the expression: ‘Cause and effect are not clouded’?”
Dogen said: “Cause and effect are immovable.”
Ejo asked: “If this is so, how can we escape?”
Dogen replied: “Cause and effect emerge clearly at the same time.”
Ejo asked: “If this is so, does cause prompt the next effect, or does effect bring about the next cause?”
Dogen said: “If everything were like that, it would be like Nan-ch’uan cutting the cat. Because the assembly was unable to say anything, Nan-ch’uan cut the cat in two. Later, when Nan-ch’uan told this story to Chao-chou, the latter put his straw sandal on his head and went out, an excellent performance. If I had been Nan-ch’uan, I would have said: ‘Even if you can speak, I will cut the cat, and even if you cannot speak, I will still cut it. Who is arguing about the cat? Who can save the cat?’”
Dogen, Shobogenzo Zuimonki, 1.6[ 1 ]
Zen Buddhism has often been attacked as an amoral, even immoral, religious tradition. In support of such claims, critics sometime cite anecdotes wherein a Zen Master’s action is clearly immoral by conventional moral standards, such as the following passage from the Mumonkan titled “Nansen Cuts the Cat in Two”:
Nansen Osho [Chin: Nan-ch’uan] saw monks of the Eastern and Western halls quarreling over a cat. He held up the cat and said, “If you can give an answer, you will save the cat. If not, I will kill it.” No one could answer, and Nansen cut the cat in two.
That evening Joshu [Chin: Chao-chou] returned, and Nansen told him of the incident. Joshu took off his sandal, placed it on his head, and walked out. “If you had been there, you would have saved the cat,” Nansen remarked.[ 2 ]
True story or not, this koan does pose a challenge to those who would defend Zen Buddhism against its moralistic critics. As we shall see, in his appropriation of this koan, Dogen’s own moral vision becomes manifest.
In Shobogenzo Zuimonki, Dogen sets out his interpretation of the Koan (Sotozen article)
Nan Ch’uan Kills a Cat (Blue Cliff Record Case 63)
POINTER
Where the road of ideation cannot reach, that is just right to bring to attention; where verbal explanation cannot reach, you must set your eyes on it quickly. If your thunder rolls and comets fly, then you can overturn lakes and topple mountains. Is there anyone in the crowd who can manage this? To test, I cite this to see.
CASE
At Nan Ch’uan’s place one day the (monks of) the eastern and western halls were arguing about a cat. (1) When Nan Ch’uan saw this, he then held up the cat and said, “If you can speak, then I will not kill it.” (2) No one in the community replied; (3) Nan Ch’uan cut the cat into two pieces.(4)
NOTES
1. It’s not just today that they’re haggling together. This is a case of degeneracy.
2. When the true imperative goes into effect, the ten directions are subdued. This old fellow has the capability to distinguish dragons from snakes.
3. What a pity to let him go. A bunch of lacquer tubs-what are they worth? Phoney Ch’an followers are as plentiful as hemp and millet.
4. How quick! How quick! If he hadn’t acted like this, they would all be fellows playing with a mud ball. He draws the bow after the thief has gone. Already this is secondary; he should have been hit before he even picked it up.
(From the Blue Cliff Record)
Incidentally, the coda in the story about Joshu putting his sandals on his head and walking out doesn’t appear in the Blue Cliff Record. It does appear in The Gateless Gate, which was compiled about a century later (early 1200s). The first case in TGG is Joshu’s Mu koan, which curiously doesn’t appear in the BCR, although there are quite a few other koans from Joshu. One can only infer the influence of Dahui, whose active career was between the two, and who invented koan zen as we recognize it today ( and who was a contemporary and friend of Hongzhi, who we talked about last week)
Comments
Have you noticed reference to a single cut coming up elsewhere? One place is at the start of the Heart Sutra when describing Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva’ deep practice of praja paramitta seeing the five skandhas as empty, then the phrase 度一切苦厄 – do issai ku yaku – usually translated as something like ‘passing beyond, saving all beings from suffering’. This translation doesn’t mention precisely the characters issai which literally means single cut or slice, but can also means everything or entirety. I think here the action of Avalokiteshvara making a single cut, while/due to the practice of prajna paramitta, connects all things and is saving all beings. So I wonder how much the drama in the koan with the single cut to a vulnerable living being, the cat, (and Dogen in his commentary) is working with this idea, and I see it can connect to your explanation John related to Manjusri’s wisdom/ prajna, and perhaps the intuitive ‘before thinking’ type of prajna practice of zazen described in the Heart Sutra.
I’ve not found the kanji characters in the Chinese original of this case, might be interesting to have a look.
Shogen Blair
Here is the original Chinese if that helps, Blair.
From http://ntireader.org/taisho/t2003.html
【六三】舉。南泉一日東西兩堂爭猫兒(不是今日合閙。也一場漏逗)南泉見遂提起云。道得即不斬(正令當行。十方坐斷。
這老漢有定龍蛇手脚)眾無對(可惜放過。一隊漆桶堪作什麼。杜撰禪和如麻似粟)泉斬猫兒為兩段
(快哉快哉。若不如此。盡是弄泥團漢。賊過後張弓。已是第二頭未舉起時好打)。
宗師家。看他一動一靜。一出一入。且道意旨如何。這斬猫兒話。天下叢林。商量浩浩地。有者道。提起處便是。有底道。在斬處。且得都
沒交涉。他若不提起時。亦匝匝地作盡道理。殊不知。他古人。有定乾坤底眼。有定乾坤底劍。爾且道。畢竟是誰斬猫兒。只如南泉提起
云。道得即不斬。當時忽有人道得。且道南泉斬不斬。所以道。正令當行十方坐斷。出頭天外看。誰是箇中人。其實當時元不斬。此話
亦不在斬與不斬處。此事軒知。如此分明。不在情塵意見上討。若向情塵意見上討。則辜負南泉去。但向當鋒劍刃上看。是有也得無
也得。不有不無也得。所以古人道。窮則變變則通。而今人不解變通。只管向語句上走。南泉恁麼提起。不可教人合下得甚語。只要教
人自薦。各各自用自知。若不恁麼會。卒摸索不著。雪竇當頭頌云。
兩堂俱是杜禪和(親言出親口。一句道斷。據欵結案)撥動煙塵不柰何(看爾作什麼折合。現成公案。也有些子)
賴得南泉能舉令(舉拂子云。一似這箇。王老師猶較些子。好箇金剛王寶劍。用切泥去也)
一刀兩段任偏頗(百雜碎。忽有人按住刀。看他作什麼。不可放過也。便打)
頗(普禾切偏也音坡)
兩堂俱是杜禪和。雪竇不向句下死。亦不認驢前馬後。有撥轉處。便道撥動煙塵不柰何。雪竇與南泉把手共行。一句說了也。兩堂首
座。沒歇頭處。到處只管撥動煙塵。柰何不得。賴得南泉與他斷這公案。收得淨盡。他爭柰前不搆村後不迭店。所以道。賴得南泉能舉
令。一刀兩段任偏頗。直下一刀兩段。更不管有偏頗。且道南泉據什麼令。
Mark Ellison
That’s fantastic thank you Mark, from my limited knowledge of kanji I can see the 一刀兩段 ittouryoudan (Japanese pronunciation) – one slicing action which jisho.org defines as ‘cutting in two with a single stroke; taking decisive (drastic) measure’
That certainly ties in 🙂
Shogen Blair