Today I'm going to talk about Nonsense Cutting the Cat in Two, which appears in the Mu'man Khan and also in the Blue Cliff Record, and also in the Book of Serenity. It's a very famous, well-known koan. And people like to associate it with Zen because it's so dramatic and unusual. Maybe unusual is not the right word, but extreme. Zen master Nansen.

[01:02]

Nansen was a disciple of Baso, and he was the teacher of Joshu, three of the most well-known Zen masters in the Tang Dynasty in the 8th and 9th century. So Zen master Nansen saw the monks of the eastern and the 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. If not, I'll kill it. No one could answer. And Nansen cut the cat in two. That's the story. What's one half of the story? That evening, Joshu returned and Nansen

[02:04]

told him of the incident. Joshu took off his sandals, placed them on his head, and walked out. If you had been there, you would have saved the cat, Nansen remarked. That's the other half of the story. And then Mumon has a comment. He says, tell me, what did Joshu mean when he put the sandals on his head If you can give a turning word on this, you will see that Nansen's decree was carried out with good reason. If not, danger. And then he has a verse and he said, had Joshu been there, he would have done the opposite. When the sword is snatched away, even Nansen begs for his life. So this is the case. In the monastery, in those large monasteries in China, they had the Eastern Hall and the Western Hall, I think.

[03:23]

And the administration was in one hall and the practicing monks were in the other hall. And they had a lot of rats and mice in those monasteries, as you might imagine. And they always had cats around. And the cats were, you know, probably considered pets, I don't know. The thing is that nobody knows exactly what the monks were quarreling about. Most people assume that they were quarreling about... I mean, it was over the cat, of course. But the most logical assumption is that the monks of the Eastern Hall needed the cat for their mice.

[04:28]

And the monks from the other hall thought they needed the cat for their mice. It could be some other thing, but that's pretty logical. And I don't know why else they would be quarreling over a cat. Does the cat have Buddha nature? Maybe the cat was a pet of one Paul or a pet of the other. Well, yes, that's so. So the pet and the attachment and the usefulness. Those are two aspects. So the monks were, and when Nansen came by, apparently he was rather upset by this kind of behavior in the monks. The monks were killing their Buddha nature. And Joshu took up the cat, and he said, if you can give me a word, your word will save the cat.

[05:50]

But you have to be very quick. You can't just think up something. You have to, without hesitation, save this cat. What does it mean to save the cat without hesitation? The moment you start to think or hesitate, you've fallen into duality. You've fallen into subject and object. How does one save the cat? So this is a koan for each person. How would you save the cat? People say the big problem is killing the cat.

[06:56]

But it really has not so much to do with killing the cat or not killing the cat. Some people say Some people say, well, Joshu didn't really kill the cat. He just pretended to kill the cat and made it so convincing that people felt it. That's one school. The other school said, of course he killed the cat. Otherwise, you know, the story lacks impact. But you can be whichever school you like, and it doesn't make any difference whether you think he killed the cat or whether you think he didn't kill the cat. If he killed the cat, Nansen killed the cat, someone said he sacrificed his karma for the benefit of the monks, but not for the benefit of the cat.

[08:04]

But, you know, we kill chickens and animals all the time without giving any second thought. So why should we still be thinking, so concerned about a cat? Well, we should be concerned about a cat, but we should also be concerned about all those chickens and pigs and so forth as well. So the first of the 10 precepts is don't willfully take life. So this is what makes the story so dramatic. Here, Nansen, who is this grand patriarch, willfully taking the life of this cat to make a point. So he must be pretty serious about it. he's willing to sacrifice his own karma to make a point.

[09:18]

So, right here is also a good little koan. So, this story is reminiscent of some other stories. Like in the Bible, there's the story of King Solomon, which you all know. Two women, one who was a mother and one who thought she would like to be a mother, came to King Solomon with a baby. And each woman claimed that it was her baby. And so they presented this koan to King Solomon. They said, we want you to decide whose baby this is.

[10:20]

And we both claim it. So he said, I'm going to, he took out his sword and said, I'm going to cut this baby in half and give each of you half. And the woman, one woman said, no, no, it's hers. And then he knew who the mother was. So the story has some of that feeling. But, you see, what would he have done if neither of the women had said anything? That we don't know. Would he have gone through with it, like Joshu did?

[11:26]

I mean, like Nansen did? We don't know. Because he received an answer, a quick answer, right away. She said, oh, it's hers. belongs to that lady. And then he knew it was the other one. Of course, there was the mother. And then there's the Alexander and the Gordian Nut. Alexander was traveling through the Middle East somewhere and he was presented with this puzzle. that nobody had been able to solve since time began. There was this knot that nobody had ever been able to untangle or untie. And they presented it to Alexander as he was coming through.

[12:28]

And Alexander took out his sword and cut it in two. Very famous story. So, after Nansen either cut the cat in two or didn't, he went home and Joshu, his disciple, returned from someplace and Nansen told him about the story. I mean, he told him about what happened. and asked him, what would you have said? And Nansen put sandals on top of his head and walked out. And Nansen said, if you had been there, you would have saved the cat. Now, how would Joshua have saved the cat?

[13:35]

And what does it mean that he put sandals on top of his head and walked out? This is a question that cannot be answered using your usual reasoning. It's actually not difficult. You can ponder forever. But it's actually what he asked for. He said, if you can give me a word. But nobody said anything. Choshu immediately knew what to do.

[14:40]

When Dogen heard about this story, he had several responses to it. One response was, the monks should have said, you asked a question and we couldn't answer, so please put the cat down. And another response was, Nansen knows how to cut the cat in two, but challenge him to cut the cat into one. So, Nansen takes a lot of flak. Everybody criticizes Nansen, but he's beyond their criticism.

[15:43]

nonsense, activity, action was totally knowing what he was doing and decisive. And Joshu's response was immediately decisive. The monks were just standing there with their mouths open. So who killed the cat? Mansen is concerned about the monk's understanding.

[16:54]

Sometimes the commentators will say, Oh, they were all stupid monks, or they were lazy monks. In those days, because the monasteries were so big, they had a lot of monks who were just trying to be fit because there were hard times in China. So they weren't really Zen monks. They were just, you know, rice bags, what's called rice bags. But that's beside the point. I think that that kind of comment is so good. But Natsen was worried about, concerned about the understanding of his monks. And their quarreling and their falling into duality was the thing that concerned him the most.

[17:57]

was the fact that they were staining their nature. Not just breaking precepts, but staining their nature. Killing their nature by not being compassionate and pitting themselves against each other, quarreling, falling into seeing their fellow monks as opponents. This happens in Zen communities all the time, actually. You find out that Zen communities are just like other communities.

[19:03]

People quarrel and are jealous and they're avaricious and they're all sorts of things. But the difference is that there's an effort to be aware. This is so. And to deal with it. So this is how Nansen chose to deal with it. Very dramatic. and very original. Nansen and Joshu are praised for their originality, their creativity, and their spontaneity in bringing Zen to life through their actions. And that also is what this case is about. It's about spontaneity and about going, cutting through, cutting through to get to the point without hesitation.

[20:24]

So, maybe you have some question about it. Greg? It seems to me that they were already lost. The East and the West Hall, they were already gone. Why would he set them up? He knew that they wouldn't be able to respond appropriately given the state of mind they were in. Was his purpose just to illustrate to them, make them mindful of where they were? Well, one cannot assume that they couldn't answer. I don't think you could assume that they couldn't answer, even though they were gone. They can be resurrected. They can be resurrected in an instant, as a matter of fact.

[21:30]

But your second part of the question, I think, is correct. Grace? What would you say to me? What would you say about getting the cat? What would I say? Give me that cat. Right now. Tomorrow I might say something else. So putting sandals on your head in and of itself is no meaning and is not symbolic of anything. It was just done with commitment and without hesitation. It was a response without thinking up an excuse or a reason or philosophy, or... it was just... So, but it was up to Namsen to evaluate Joshu's presence, so if the monks had done something, he might have evaluated that the word was not adequate to save the cat's life.

[22:53]

Well, but is there a word that's not adequate? Not if you want to save a cat's life. That's right. And if you really want to save a cat's life, I remember one time, I may have told you this story before, I think this cup is leaking, but maybe just sweating. I had a cat. I was living on a barge and I was fishing off the end, this was many, many years ago. And the cat, you know, liked to be out there and look around. the line from the fishing pole on the deck and it had bait on it. And when I looked around, the line was going into the cat's mouth. And without thinking or saying anything or deciding anything, I just took hold of the cat and just froze it with my energy. And then looked at the cat in the eye and took the line and just lifted it out.

[23:59]

It was that way down there. And he knew, you know, something. I communicated something without, just through this spontaneous presence and energy, which was total. And I just lifted it up. It came right up. So, that's how I saved the cat. when you said, who killed the cat when you were giving your talk? And then you paused and there was silence. I had an immediate answer, which was, I did. And then I was overwhelmed with fear from saying it. Yeah, good response. But by not, by being overwhelmed with fear, that's the whole thing. Yeah, because this koan is about you. You know, we use Joshu and Nansen, but really it's about how we killed Cat.

[25:09]

But I killed it again by not saying it. By not? By not saying it right out at that moment. I first heard that story right around the time of the Gulf War. And I was thinking about how, I was sort of wishing that someone could have forced Saddam Hussein and George Bush to be in a room and then hold up a baby or something, you know, and say, if you don't talk together, then this baby will die. And it was very real, because of course that happened. And, you know, it built up to The whole world was asking them to negotiate and they wouldn't and wouldn't. And then all of it happened. And so I guess I just took that story as a call to action, sort of in part. I mean, that's how I understood it. And everybody's responsibility to do something.

[26:14]

Well, politics is the course of avoidance, in most cases. It should be. facing up to things, but it's mostly avoidance until you can get some advantage. Stalking for advantage. Killing life. I see. It's a wonderful kind of koan, actually. And people say that it's different. There's always a little bit of that, you know, in the commentaries, that people want to say that.

[27:21]

You know, the teachers want to say that. And they kind of hint at it, but they don't claim it. They say, maybe it's like, you know, topsy-turvy or one foot, you know, That's where a woman says, teacher, open his mouth and give the family treasure away. Yes. Charlie? Can you think of another koan where you get a two-for-one deal, like this is a master and student, but the student is a very advanced student. Usually it's master and student who is not paying attention. Oh, yeah. Well, yes, there are other koans like that. Like, Tokusan carries his bowls. And Ganto, Tokusan is carrying his bowls. He's an old man, you know.

[28:23]

When he was young, he was very fierce. But as an old man, he was very meek. Kind of, you know, quiet. And forgetful. You know, like he would come to the wrong door in the morning to go to the Zendo and stuff like that. And he was carrying his bowls and Ganto, Ganto and Seppo were his two disciples. And Ganto said, where are you going with your bowls? Bell hasn't rung yet for dinner. And Ganto, I mean, and Tokusan turned around, went back to his room. And Ganto said, oh, and then... Yeah, I mean, I think it's right here.

[29:29]

Yes. This is the preceding koan. Tokusan went down toward the dining room, holding his bowls. Seppo met him and asked, where are you off to with your bowls? The bell is not rung and the drum is not sounded. Tokusan turned and went back to his room. Seppo mentioned this to Ganto, who remarked, Tokusan is renowned, but he does not know the last word. Tokusan heard about this remark and sent his attendant to fetch Ganto. You do not approve of me? He asked Ganto, and Ganto whispered his meaning to him. Togasan said nothing at the time, but the next day he ascended the rostrum, and behold, he was very different from usual. Ganto, going toward the front of the hall, clapped his hands and laughed loudly, saying, congratulations, our old man has got hold of the last word. From now on, nobody in the whole country can outdo him. That's a koan, but I'm not going to talk about that now.

[30:32]

So yes, there is that kind of... And also, this interaction between Nansen and Joshu, this is considered Nansen kills and Joshu brings to life. play out the two activities of the knife. Going this way, the knife kills. And going this way, the knife brings to life. This is Monjushri's sword. And this is being played out between Nansen and Joshu. So it's master and disciple turning the Dharma together. When you say, give me a turning word, does that automatically refer to a word that's an impulsive without thinking word, or?

[31:50]

It's, yeah, not exactly impulsive. Impulsive has various meanings, but spontaneous. Yes. So, and it's not necessarily a word, an action. It can be a word or an action or whatever, but it demonstrates the undivided reality. So if they had said something that was political or, you know, independent... It probably wouldn't work. They'd have said, it belongs to me. He would have cut the cat in two. So there, you just cut the cat in two. You have to speak up because there's an airplane going on overhead. Yeah. Yeah. Yes, by putting it on top of his head.

[32:52]

Everything comes to life with Joshu. Everything dies with Nansen. When Nansen cuts a cat, everything is dead. Totally. There's just nothing but dead. And when Joshu puts the sandals on his head, he brings everything to life. Totally. Cure, spontaneity, decisiveness, all that kind of compassion. I don't think so. No because they're his shoes. That's very intimate, yes.

[34:41]

We do hear it, but it's on different levels. I think that sometimes the student is far away from it. Sometimes the student is very close to it. It depends on the situation. But in this case, yes, Nan Sen had a lot of confidence in Zhou Xu. You know, Joshu was already an old man. He started studying with Joshu when he was 40. And then he studied with him until he was 80. And then he went on pilgrimage for another 40 years. So Joshu is the oldest living known Zen Master. He's still living today.

[35:44]

here, and what should we do? Exactly right, yes. This is called, you know, this kind of activity is called full function. Nantsa's activity is called fully functioning. Total body-mind functioning with the universe. And Joshu's activity is is total functioning of body and mind with the universe. Zazen is total functioning of body and mind with the universe. So when one is sitting Zazen properly, it's total functioning, body-mind engagement. And then the mind starts thinking about something else. dividing, right? We're always dividing the mind by thinking, which is normal, natural. And then what you do in that case is keep coming back.

[37:05]

It's very simple. You just come back. But then, you know, this is really very interesting. This thing in your mind is very interesting. You don't want to come back because it's so interesting. And then some people don't want to sit Zazen at all because they'd rather think all the time. And if you don't think all the time, something will happen. Bad. But Zazen is still fully functioning even though there's thinking. Even though discrimination is going on. Zazen is Zazen, even though the mind is still discriminating, as long as you keep coming back. So you let go of the discriminating mind over and over again. The discriminating mind starts thinking about various things, and then it starts thinking, oh, this hurts.

[38:14]

Ouch. I'll sit here until it's over. That's the discriminating mind. And then it's no longer, it still zazen as long as you keep your position. But better to let go of that kind of thinking and not discriminate because it doesn't help to discriminate. And you realize that by not discriminating, you can be comfortable. As soon as you stop complaining, you're comfortable. You can be comfortable. But the moment you start complaining, you're lost. Just like that. But for a seasoned Zen student, you can start complaining and then realize that you're complaining and let go of it. find your balance again.

[39:18]

That happens to everyone. Then you realize, oh, I better stop complaining. Then you can become comfortable. And then you're cutting the cat into one. So that's what sadhana is. Cut the cat in one. Everything is Equal. Pleasure and pain, good and bad, right and wrong, all equal. Thinking and not thinking. The great koan of Zazen is think, not thinking. Whether you think or don't think, it's wrong. And it's also right. Okay.

[40:22]

Just keep coming back to what you're doing. That's the main thing. Just over and over, over and over, keep coming back to your intention. There's a commentary, because this is in the book, Setsuo has a verse on the case, and he says, thoughtless, the monks of both halls, raising dust and smoke, that's their quarreling, out of control. Fortunately, nonsense was there. His deeds squared with his words. In other words, he said, I'm going to do it, and he did it. He cut the cat in two, regardless of who was right and who was wrong.

[41:25]

Which is like Tokusan, when he was a young man, saying, I'm going to give you 30 blows, whether you're right or wrong. Which way will you go? These are numberless.

[42:14]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ