Morning. This morning I'm going to comment on a case from the Blue Cliff, from the Mumon Koan, Master Mumon's Gateless Gate of 48 Koans. This koan also appears in the Blue Cliff Record and the Book of Serenity as well. So people really like this koan or they for various reasons. But its drama draws everyone to it. So here's the drama of Nansen, Master Nansen, cutting the cat in two. Most people, most Zen students are familiar with this koan. and every once in a while we think about it.

[01:06]

So, this translation says, Master Nansen, Nansen was one of the great Zen, He's between the 7th and 8th centuries in China, and his student was Joshu, the great Joshu. So Nansen Osho Osho means priest, actually. Dai Osho means big priest. So Nansen Osho saw the monks of the eastern and western halls quarreling over a cat. He held up the cat and said, if you can give me a turning word, you will save the cat.

[02:19]

If not, I will kill it. No one could answer, and Nansen cut the cat in two. To elaborate a little on the story, there were often two sides of the monastery, the eastern side and the western side. Administration was at one side, and the so-called practice, zendo side, was the other side, where the monks lived and practiced. in the sodo, as it's called. Sodo is where the monks live and sit zazen and eat. Not always, but there are variations. Anyway, in this monastery, this is the way it was.

[03:25]

Apparently, there was a cat, and the cat probably walked back and forth to whoever was feeding him, and probably both sides were feeding the cat. And the cat didn't care, but the monks on one side said, it's really our cat, and the monks on the other side said, it's really our cat. So they were quarreling over whose cat it was. And when Nansen walked by, it gave him this great opportunity to say something to the monks, to bring out their understanding. So he held up the cat and he said, If you can give me a turning word, you'll save the cat. If not, I'll cut it in two and you can have one half and you can have the other half.

[04:33]

This reminds me, you know, this is not a new story. Matter of fact, it happens all the time. It often happens in everyone's household. So, this story appears as Solomon's great koan. Way back there, there were two women who were arguing over whose baby it was. One woman said, it's my baby. The other one said, it's my baby. And they said, in order to settle this, we should go to King Solomon and ask him to see if he can settle this. So they came to King Solomon and Solomon said, well, I'll cut the baby in two and you can have one half and you can have the other half.

[05:46]

And when he said that, the woman whose baby it was said, it's hers. So there's a turning word. She saved the baby. She sacrificed her ownership to save the baby. So that's a wonderful example of cutting the baby into one, as Nogen says. So that evening, oh there's another one, another example of a little different though. Alexander, when he was conquering the eastern world, so to speak, ran into

[06:48]

a koan called the Gordian Knot. It was a knot that could not, it was, nobody could ever untie the knot. It was so intricately tied. So they presented it to Alexander and I said, can you untie this knot? What kind of a guy are you? Let's test you out. So he scratched his head and he took out his sword and cut it in two. That's interesting. So this is the opposite. This is like cutting the knot in two instead of in one. So that evening, Joshu, who was Nansen's student, returned. He wasn't there when this happened, but he went out for lunch or something.

[07:51]

So he came back. He came back and Nansen told him about it. And Joshu put his sandals on top of his head and calmly walked out. And Nansen said, if you had been there, When this happened, you would have saved the cat. So he's asking the students, saying, just say something. Respond. Respond to this. Nobody could do it. Nobody could say anything. So how does one respond? What is the right answer? He didn't say, give me the right answer. He just said, if you can give me a turning word, just say something. He didn't know what to say.

[08:54]

Joshu simply put his sandals on his head and walked out calmly. You have to say something. You have to respond. He wasn't asking for a long discourse. or a philosophical explanation. He just wanted him to say something. Do something. Do something to save the cat. Do something to save your own life. What would you do? There's a story where Buddha, Shakyamuni supposedly said, when you are struck by the arrow, Will you give a philosophical argument about what happened? Or how this happened? Or why this happened? He said, no, you simply break the arrow and pull it out. That's what he was asking for.

[10:02]

Just do something to save the cat. So there's a million things he could say, but no one said it. So if you on the same level as Nansen, you will immediately say something. Just like Master Zhaozhou, Zhaoshu, didn't say a word. He simply said something with his whole body and mind. He said something backed up by the whole universe. It wasn't just an idea. His whole body, mind, and the whole universe was behind his action.

[11:08]

So, I'm going to defer here to Master Dogen. Dogen and his student Ajo, Koun Ajo, not Koan Ajo, as we say, Koun Ajo, K-O-U-N, Koun. So, this is, they're discussing cause and effect. Eijo asks his teacher Dogen, he says, what is the meaning of not being blind to cause and effect? And Dogen replied, not moving cause and effect. And Eijo asked, how can we be released then? Released meaning being free from cause and effect.

[12:20]

which is almost impossible. And Dogen said, cause and effect are self-evident. And A. Joe inquired further, then does cause bring about effect or does effect bring about cause? And we know that cause and effect are simultaneous. When you do something as a cause, the effect happens at the same time. So whatever we do has an effect right away. Even though elaborately cause and effect, the effect can feel, you can feel the effect at a later time where you may not feel it or experience it right away. But nevertheless, the effect is immediate. So that means one thing causes another. This is the law of causality.

[13:22]

So Dogen said, if it is so in every case, what about nonsense killing the cat? When his students could not say anything, nonsense immediately killed the cat. Later, when Joshu heard about the incident, he put his straw sandals on his head and went out. This is an excellent action. So Dogen added, if I had been Nansen, I would have said, if you cannot speak, I will kill it. Even if you can speak, I'll kill it. Whether you can say something or not say something, I'll kill it. So how do you save the cat? if nothing you can say will work, and whatever you say will work. Whatever you say will work, but nothing you can say will work. So, who would fight over a cat?

[14:30]

Who can save the cat? On behalf of the students, I would have said, We are not able to speak, Master. Go ahead and kill the cat." That's pretty honest. Then he would have put the cat down. I mean, let the cat go. We don't know what to do. That's a good answer. But they couldn't even say that. So, or I would have said to them, Master, you only know about cutting it, the cat, in two with one stroke. yet you do not know about cutting it into one with one stroke." Eijo asked, how do you cut it into one with one stroke? And Dogen said, the cat itself. Dogen added, if I had been Nansen, when the students could not answer, I would have released the cat, saying that the students had already spoken.

[15:36]

sometimes not saying anything is a great statement. So this is Dogen's compassion for the students and the cat. So Dogen added, if I had been non-sin, when the students could not answer, I would release the cat, saying that the students had already spoken. An ancient master said, when a great function manifests itself, no fixed rules exist. So, you know, I don't know how to explain that, but either you understand it or you don't. We are always, you know, there are rules. And there are fundamental ways that the universe works, but not necessarily so.

[16:43]

We're always thinking in dualistic terms. There are two things going on here. One is the fact of the cat and the students in Nansen and Joshu, and the incident and the drama. But the other side is, what is the cat? Who is Nansen? What is the real question here? The real question is, can you really chop the universe into little pieces and kill it? We can kill the earth, but it's really hard to kill the universe. We're not that powerful. But can life itself be killed?

[17:50]

So this goes much deeper. How do we save ourselves from our dualistic thinking? Who is the cat anyway? all this nonsense. We think in terms of human justice and human values, and the only people that think in terms of justice and human values are human beings. When there's an earthquake and thousands of people are killed, Is that an injustice? We don't think that way. We say, that's just nature. So, human beings are both nature and human. Buddha nature. Universal nature.

[18:58]

Universal nature, there's no grief. or judgment, or blaming. We don't blame the landslide that covers the hikers. That's just the way it is. That's nature. But as a human, we think in terms of good and bad, right and wrong, should, should not, like, dislike, oh my, So there are two things going at the same time. One is Buddha nature, which covers everything and just has no judgment one way or the other. And then there's human nature, which is about ourself and about the universe.

[20:01]

So human nature is always cutting the cat in two. Human nature is always dualistic. There's this and there's that. There's right and wrong, good and bad, and so forth. But in Buddha nature, there's just this. Everything is just what it is. quarreling over the cat. Who owns the cat? Nobody owns a cat. We think we own a cat, but cats are not owned. They're kidnapped. And, you know, they go along with it, as long as you feed them. But they're very elusive, you know. What Nansen is trying to bring out from his monks, from his students, is how do you cut the cat in one?

[21:24]

How do you give freedom or life to everything? How do you bring life to life? By cutting it in one. not by cutting it in two, although we live in a dualistic world where we have what we call values, and we are very careful, hopefully, to uphold these values to protect and make the effort to make a peaceful world and a loving kindness world, except that it doesn't work. It works kind of, you know. That's why, you know, the law of circularity, so-called, means that we make a big effort to create that kind of wonderful world, and then something comes along and wipes it out.

[22:39]

as soon as we get to a certain point somebody comes along and wipes it out, some demon comes along and wipes it out and then we recoup and start all over again. Civilizations come and civilizations go and they reach their peak and then they die out because the world is dualistic. Bad creates good, right creates wrong, and so forth. This gives us a big dilemma. So how do we stay above the fray? The fighting demons are always down there creating conflict. Conflict is, ah, the most natural thing.

[23:40]

Conflict is the most natural thing. And we always try to make peace out of conflict. Within conflict, we try to make peace. That's possible, but it's not universal. How do we find, how do we ourself save ourself? You know, we're trying to save the world. I know you want to say something. We try to save the world, but can we even save ourself? Period. What does it mean to save ourself? What does it mean to find our own salvation? Shakyamuni on his deathbed said, you have to find your own salvation. If you follow the rules that I'm laying out, even though you have to test out the rules, You know, don't take my word for it.

[24:43]

I'm going to give you my advice, which I hope you will take. But you have to find your own salvation because no one will find it for you. So how do we find our own salvation? What does that mean? It means saving ourselves from the dualistic world. We're cutting the cat into one. so that when we cut the cat into one, we let go of our argument. I know that seems hard. It's very hard because we are always falling into like and dislike, love and hate, want and not want. That's why practice is so difficult. Suzuki Roshi, in the first opening of Zen Mind Beginner's Mind, says, practice is difficult, but not because you'll let your legs hurt in Zazen.

[25:54]

You can deal with that, but because we're always falling into duality. we save ourself from falling, from being controlled by the dualistic world. And that's why we sit Zazen. When we sit Zazen, we make a purposeful effort to let go of the dualistic world. we escape from the dualistic world for a moment. And I cut the cat in one. We don't allow ourself to be turned around by like and dislike, good and bad, right and wrong, love and hate. The world of opposites doesn't operate in Zazen unless we allow it to.

[27:02]

but it gives us the opportunity to rise above the dualistic world. Of course, we derive great joy from the dualistic world when it makes us happy, and we don't derive great joy from it when we don't feel happy, when it's not making us happy. But we have to remember that whether it's making us happy or not making us happy, we should not become attached to it. We can walk through it, and we do. We have to walk through the dualistic world as a participant, but how do we maintain our freedom without attachment to good and bad and right and wrong? So we go through these periods that try our practice, like right now.

[28:06]

So we have this whopper of a koan that's gonna carry us through the next four years and make us really angry. So, I'm going to say a little bit more. You wanted to say something? I wanted to wonder with everyone maybe that as Manson is looking at the monks and the function is present, he sees an opportunity and he says to these guys, here in this moment there's an answer. Here in this moment is a question. Can you dare to be the answer? Yes. And no one even recognized that the answer was immediately and always present in the function. Yes. So then he actually went and broke the function. In a certain sense, if you ask me, he went and said, OK, this is my answer. But it was the next moment.

[29:12]

The next moment. But I'm getting too far off that. My point was that if I had been there or if anyone is there, It doesn't mean that they answer the right answer. It means that they respond and something comes to them in that moment only. Yes. And they don't own it, but it's an answer, and it's right or wrong, we don't know. Is this kind of what he was calling for? I think so. Yeah. Yes. Just say something. Can I just say something? Yes, yes. Master, there are not two things, human nature and Buddha nature. No, there are not two things. Somebody just said that. Me? Yeah. Because human nature says, save the cat. Buddha nature says, save the cat. Yeah. So, I'll get to that.

[30:13]

Thank you. Is this a crime or not? Is this a crime? What? To kill the cat? I wouldn't say that. I would just say that both the things you referred to as two natures both say the same thing. Right. They're not, although I say two natures, they're not two. They're just two aspects. Yeah. Yes. There are two aspects of one nature. So then, A. Joe asks, he says, What shall we call it? And Dogen says, call it cutting the cat. And Ejo says, is it a crime or not? And Dogen says, yes, it's a crime. So that's human nature. Within human nature, you could call it a crime. But human nature and Buddha nature are the same thing, although in order to distinguish Buddha nature from human nature,

[31:16]

Like, you know, you're Linda, right? But you're not Linda. You're just called Linda, right? But you and Linda are the same thing, except that there are two aspects. When we talk about one side, we have to separate it from the other side, even though it's not two things. That's non-duality within duality. or duality within non-duality, right? So this is all about talking. When we talk, we have to separate things that are not separate in order to talk about the two aspects. So he says, yes, it is a crime. And Ejo inquired, well, how are we able to be released from it, from the crime? And Dogen says, Buddha's action, which is our basic nature, as a criminal action are separate, yet they both occur in one action.

[32:21]

It just occurs to me that we have this wonderful teaching coming down through all these generations, because he cut the cat. Yes, so this is the kind of tension between two sides of this story. One is that yes, he actually cut the cat, but did he? And so there's that tension and there's always a question in the commentaries. Did he really cut the cat or are we just talking about cutting the cat? But to make this come up as reality, so to speak, you say, yes, he cut the cat in two, and just take it or leave it. This is reality. Cats get cut in two. Cats eat mice. I remember one time somebody at Tassajara

[33:29]

Suzuki Roshi was there and somebody came down the road and they saw a cat. I think it was Jamesburg, they have cats. Jamesburg is that little house before you get on the road to Tatsahara. And they saw a cat eating, playing with a mouse, which they do, they play with it before they eat it. cruelty, and so she asked Dogen, I mean, she said, well, what should we do about the cat eating the mouse? You know, when we see that happening, what should we do? And he said, well, you know, we have the idea that there's something wrong with that. We might have the idea there's something wrong with that. I don't think we all do, but that's a possibility. And maybe the cat, maybe the mouse is a little bodhisattva, and he's saying, this is my destiny, you know, leave me alone, I'll handle it, I'll take care of it.

[34:36]

The cat, the mice eat cats, I'm a cat, I'm a mouse, and the cat is eating me. This happens all the time. We eat chickens. You know, if you want to complain, don't ever eat a chicken. So things happen. This is the world where we can do certain things about it, but in the wild, animals eat each other, just like we do. Unless you're a vegetarian or vegan, you know, but people and animals, we are animals anyway. Yes? I'm going to mess this up, but you said something, trying to speak non-dualistically, I think, and you said there's nothing you can do to save the cat. there's something you can do to save the cat. Would you say something about that, and would you also say something about turning words? Yeah, turning word is like saying a word that leads someone's mind to get it.

[35:47]

To get it. To get it. I got it. There's a turning word that, I got it, through that turning word. And what was the rest of it? I think you were trying to speak non-dualistically and say that there's nothing you can do to save the cat, but there's something you can do to save the cat. Yeah. And I didn't quite catch that. Well, saving the cat means saving yourself. So it's really all about you. Koans are always about you, even though it looks like they're about somebody else and something else, right? But what will you say? So this koan is about, I'm gonna cut the cat in two, what will you say to save it? To keep it from, and to save yourself and the cat from being caught by the world of duality.

[36:53]

which is a killer. It's not about the sandal. No, it's about doing something beyond thinking. He wanted somebody to say something that is not a conditioned thought, but just to bring something real out of your mouth. Yes, to bring something real out of your mouth. Or at least this is the way I work. Whatever I hear someone talking about, I bring my own life into it.

[37:59]

And I keep the word participation keeps coming up. And it's almost what I'm hearing is this kind of like a get it moment of participate. And if I see the cat playing with the mouse, I can leave it alone or I can do something. Yes. I have to, and I need to live with whatever choice I make. Yes. I mean, I know with this whole Republican stuff, I just am trying so hard. Someone says the word Republican and I'm like, not fun to be around. And I'm trying to figure out a way to participate and not, okay, they said Republican, you just need to shut down. Or they said the word Republican and you need to, And I don't want to not, so that's kind of what I'm getting from this, is that participate, and we just live with the consequences of our participation. Yes.

[38:59]

So, you know, with the mouse and the cat, it's possible, and I've done this in my life too, you know, with a bird, you know, you chase the cat away before it eats the bird, right? But you can't always do that. Right. This is the exception, but the rule is that the cat eats the bird, or the cat eats the, right? So, no matter what you feel about Republicans, they're here to stay. So, you know, that's our koan. That's your koan. What do I do about this? How do I participate? It's good because participation means response. So there's response and there's reaction. Response is a way to stand your ground without being thrown by your reaction.

[40:09]

Once the reaction happens, I'm already thrown. Well, that's good to admit. and then say, that's my koan. How do I respond even though I'm reacting? How do I let the response come forward so that the reaction is not taking me over because the reaction means that you are, can mean, that you are becoming caught by that which you don't like. And were they caught? They, who's they? The monks. When they didn't do anything, were they caught? Well, they were caught by their lack of participation. That's what I think Nansen, he was saying, participate, match my, I want you to match my, you know, it's like somebody's there with a gun and says, say something or else.

[41:14]

And so you have to say something like, I love you, or, you know, bang. Who knows what will happen, but you have to say something. Not, oh, please don't, that means that you're caught. Not pleading. The monks are pleading for their life. which is metaphorical, it's not, you know, but you have to stand your ground and accept the fact that, yes, you may be killed, but you have to say something that's significant. So how can you do that when you hear the word Republican? So, standing your ground is really important.

[42:18]

Not getting knocked off your seat. That's called Samadhi. Imperturbability. When someone says they're going to cut that cat in half, stand your ground and meet it. Meet it where it is. Yes, that's our practice. Hard as it is. Could you say something about, because it seems the background is the quarreling. The background is? The quarreling of the monks. Oh yeah, the monks are quarreling amongst themselves. They're quarreling about, you know, who wants the cat. Yes. So they're trying to hold on to it. Yes. And that's what Namsin is trying to cut. Yes. Well, yes, he's trying to cut. Selfishness of the monks. Right, so the cat is a test of their selfishness.

[43:20]

It's great love, great compassion. He's trying to find out if the Zen students really love the cat. It's great love, great compassion. Well, it's Solomon's question. If you really love the cat, you would say it's theirs. Right, so they couldn't even do that. Well, yeah, that would be a great answer. Oh, it's their cat, it's their cat. Yeah, because the cat is more meaningful than their possessiveness, right? Yeah, yes. Yes, I just want to say we have a cat in our neighborhood. Who's what? He's a Zen teacher. Oh, of course. He belongs to a family, but his territory is a whole block. And so, if we walk, we're on a morning walk, and he'll just walk along with us.

[44:25]

He's glad to see us. We don't own him, but we have some kind of relationship with him. And if he's at his family's house, he'll come down the stairs sometimes to greet us. But it's a relationship without ownership. You know, we like him, but we're not trying to own him. Yes. And so, from the cat's perspective, it really works. Yes, well, you know, a couple of years ago, there was this controversy, and it played out in the op-eds of the newspaper about owning a cat. And some people would say, I'm just their dog or the cat, I'm just their guardian. And other people would say, no, you own them. And they'd say, no. And this kind of argument lasted for about a month. But yes, the animals are our companions.

[45:28]

They're not our, we don't own them, although we, try to control the dogs, but you can't control the cats. You can't control it. It's just wonderful how you allow them to respond to you and how you respond to them. That's the enjoyment, you know. It's not like I own this. As soon as I own something, except my own words, that's the only thing I own is my own words, We don't control them, even though we try. They're very nice. They're so good. Can I give a little interesting information to the people? There's a person whose project is called Non-Human Rights, and it works on when and where or if you could

[46:32]

give personhood, legal personhood to an animal. And some of you may have heard the radio program Philosophy Talk. That's gonna be the topic sometime in the next couple of months. So it might throw light on nonsense and the cat. Yeah, yeah. Well, dogs and cats are people. But they're not human people. So animals are people, trees are people, all, you know, organics are people, but they're not humans. So human people and animal people. So that's the way I think about them. Yeah. That's not about dogs. me.

[47:33]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ