Blue Cliff Record (Case 4) Te Shan Carrying His Bundle

[Jundo]

The PREAMBLE means something like, in the Emptiness of the Blue Sky, there is no need to say a word, but in this world of time, space and division, sometimes you have to say or do something to convey the teachings. When is it better to do or say something, when not?

So, in the MAIN CASE, a guy (once a respected Buddhist scholar) walks into a room packed with people, makes a big show of walking across the room saying, "There's Nothing & Nobody Here."

He walks out, thinks to himself, "That was rude," so goes back, more properly bows to the teacher, holds up his sitting mat, says "Teacher," whereupon the teacher grabbed his fly whisk, Te Shan leaves again, "fluttering his sleeves."

Teacher says, "Who the heck was that, where'd he go?" and "Someday he will scold the Buddhas."

"Scolding the Buddha" could either mean "He will be so brilliant that even Buddhas will learn from him" or "He is such an ass, he will keep thinking that he knows more than the Buddhas."

Hsueh Tou and Yuan Wu in his commentary both seem to think that the two main characters in the Koan are both brilliant!

Hsueh Tou's saying "He adds frost to snow" means something like, "This was saying the obvious, no need to have said it."

Hsueh Tou's "Fully Exposed" means something like "Their heart and mind are seen through." It could mean either "How great he/they are" or "what fakes they are!"

The story in the VERSE about the enemy camp means something like, "He entered the enemy camp, did some great trick, and worked a victory." Of course, here it refers to Te Shan entering this temple and working a victory.

But I think that Te Shan was also acting like a bit of an ass. I have seen this type before, barging in, doing something "Zen" to show their enlightenment, charging out. They are usually hopeless cases all lost in their own ego.

My question ...

- HOW DO YOU TELL?

Here are four scenarios from the story ...

1- Te Shan and Master Kuei Shan both exhibited amazing enlightenment through their actions in the story.
2- Neither did, and Te Shan was just acting like a self-deluded ass showing off, while Kuei Shan was simply dumbfounded, wondering "What the hell's going on?"
3- Te Shan was enlightened, Kuei Shan a fool.
4- Kuei Shan was enlightened, Te Shan was a dope.

How to tell?

After I hear from folks responding, I will provide my own feelings on this.
.

Gassho, J
stlah

[Tairin]

4- Kuei Shan was enlightened, Te Shan was a dope.

This was closest to my impression. I can’t say that Kuei Shan was enlightened but I certainly got the sense that Te Shan was trying to be Zen or Act Zen (Whatever that means). My feeling is reinforced by Hsueh Tou’s “Completely exposed” and also by the line in the verse about Te Shan sitting in solitude amongst the weeds.

I feel we encountered the old woman selling fried cakes in The Book of Equanimity. Didn’t she also expose Ti Shan as being more focused on book learned Zen vs actual practice?

Looking forward to what other people got out of this.


Tairin
Sat today and lah

[Jishin]

The screen came back positive,
but the sun still rises gently.
Gout recedes, like waves retreating
from a once painful shore.

What was the question?
Perhaps it was always the answer—

To breathe in the moment,
and let it go,
like autumn leaves,
falling without a sound.

Gassho, Jishin, ST, LAH

[Tai Do]

Te Shan seems to be trying to act zenie, but his deluded ego was "completely exposed"... Kuei Shan simply doesn't understand what is going on, in this he shows he is also not enlightened and was "completely exposed". At least, Kuei Shan seems to know he is not fully enlightened when comments that Te Shan will soon be scolding the Buddha's and Ancestors.
Gassho,
Tai Do
Satlah

[Ramine]

To be optimistic...

No right or wrong here.
Te Shan's medicine is not for Kuei Shan. Kuei Shan's medicine is not for Te Shan.
Because of this, they miss each other. In an empty sky, birds don't have to fly together.

But how do you tell?
In two short interactions (more like performances), how can anyone tell anything (who's 'anyone' and what's 'anything' anyway )? Let them each build their grass hut and watch the weeds grow. Then build your own grass hut.

Ramine
Sat and Lah

[Matt Johnson]

As we can see Deshan manages to shake up Guishan's Monastery and it is clear they see eye to eye.

Deshan was not coming for Guishan’s Dharma as he had already settled the matter at Lungtan’s.

Even so Deshan felt an earnest wish to show respect to Guishan and his VERY hard work of enlightening his entourage. Deshan was simply engaged in the age-old tradition of exercising his understanding.

It is also clear that Deshan, having confirmed his understanding with Guishan, was not cut out for life at that monastery and was likely destined for the deep spiritual practice of a hermit and thus needed no teacher or students.

Sad as it is, many Zen master’s life paths do not result in a lineage. Some of the most realized beings in the world we never hear about because they are true people of no rank who realise that worrying about lineage and systems of transmission are just a game and distraction from practice and really only attracts the worst types.

Regardless, Deshan appears to have eventually finished scolding the Buddhas because he did have have a few students (Yen-t'ou Ch'üan-huo (828-887) and Hsüeh-feng I-ts'un (822-908) are notable.


_/\_
sat/ah
matt

[Tom A.]

Why did Te Shan expose himself like that? Was it needed in that moment? Where did it come from?

In one case Te Shan is an enlightened master, in the other case he is prideful and arrogant fool.

Maybe they are one and the same person, Kuei Shan and Te Shan, Te Shan and Kuei Shan, me and you, you and me, sometimes a fool and sometimes enlightened, sometimes enlightened and sometimes a fool, an enlightened fool. A fallible human. A stumbling dancer in need of compassion.

The moon shines bright outside my window as the clouds drift by. Compassion and at-one-ment for all.

Gassho,

Tom

SatLah

[Jundo]

Why did Te Shan expose himself like that? Was it needed in that moment? Where did it come from?

In one case Te Shan is an enlightened master, in the other case he is prideful and arrogant fool.

Maybe they are one and the same person, Kuei Shan and Te Shan, Te Shan and Kuei Shan, me and you, you and me, sometimes a fool and sometimes enlightened, sometimes enlightened and sometimes a fool, an enlightened fool. A fallible human. A stumbling dancer in need of compassion.

The moon shines bright outside my window as the clouds drift by. Compassion and at-one-ment for all.

Gassho,

Tom

SatLah

I like this.

[Matt Johnson]

Why did Te Shan expose himself like that? Was it needed in that moment? Where did it come from?

In one case Te Shan is an enlightened master, in the other case he is prideful and arrogant fool.

Curious Tom. How should Te Shan have exposed himself?

_/\_
sat/ah
matt

[ZenJay]

I would have to say that both exhibited deep understanding as well as misunderstanding. Both seem to know that each understands the Dharma, but the misunderstanding is displayed- Te Shan for his brazen and seemingly egotistical approach on his first entrance( which, to his credit, he realized his wrong and went back to show respect), and Kuei Shan for adding frost to snow later in the case, stating what should already be obvious.

Gassho,
Jay

Sat/lah today

[Koriki]

I think Te Shan and Kuei Shan both exhibited some enlightenment.

I can relate to Te Shan shaking his mat and yelling, "Teacher!" My zafu is my teacher in many ways. But yelling it at a teacher is pretty inappropriate.
I like the image of Te Shan burning his scrolls. It's a great metaphor for having a beginner's mind. Not seeing reality through the lens of preconceived notions.

In another version of this koan I once read, after Te Shan was make to wait late into the night to speak with Kuei Shan, Kuei Shan said it was too late and he would speak with him the next day and said he could sleep in a cottage behind the Zendo. When Kuei Shan opened the door for Te Shan into the darkness, that is when Te Shan said, "It's dark. How can I find my way?" and Kuei gave him the lantern. When Te Shan turned to leave Kuei Shan blew it out and Te Shan became enlightened. In this instance Kuei Shan showed his own enlightenment.

I suppose we'd like to think that once we achieve enlightenment that everything we'll do from then on will reflect that. More likely we'll have moments where we feel one with everything and respond accordingly. Other times we'll shake our fists and swear at someone who cut us off on the highway. Maybe that's what we see with Te Shan and Kuei Shan.

Gassho,
Koriki
s@lah

[Matt Johnson]

Another good Te shan story!

#don't trust a guy who gives you a lantern

_/\_
sat/ah
matt

[BikeZen]

"sometimes you have to say or do something to convey the teachings. When is it better to do or say something, when not? how do you tell?"

Te Shan was about to receive the medicine of the fly whisk but flew off. He could tell the difference.

Gassho,
Bill

Sat/Lah

[Anthony]

Here are four scenarios from the story ...

1- Te Shan and Master Kuei Shan both exhibited amazing enlightenment through their actions in the story.
2- Neither did, and Te Shan was just acting like a self-deluded ass showing off, while Kuei Shan was simply dumbfounded, wondering "What the hell's going on?"
3- Te Shan was enlightened, Kuei Shan a fool.
4- Kuei Shan was enlightened, Te Shan was a dope.

Of these, scenario #4 best fits my understanding. I think both men were enlightened in the sense that Zen teaches that we are all already enlightened and there is nothing to attain. But, I think Te Shan was probably not displaying his enlightenment. I think the simplest reading of this koan is that Te Shan was being a jerk and Kuei Shan rightly put Te Shan to rest displaying his own enlightenment.

However, Kuei Shan's last remark is pretty interesting. Jundo, you wrote that "reviling the Buddhas and patriarchs" may mean either that Te Shan is a dope or that he is enlightened. It could be the case that Kuei Shan's butt-whooping enlightened Te Shan like what sometimes is said to happen when a master hits his student with a stick.

In any case, I think this koan cautions against over-intellectualizing the Dharma, so I will go with my simplest interpretation. Te Shan is a jerk, Kuei Shan shellacked him.

gassho,
Anthony
satlah

[Jundo]

- HOW DO YOU TELL?

Here are four scenarios from the story ...

1- Te Shan and Master Kuei Shan both exhibited amazing enlightenment through their actions in the story.
2- Neither did, and Te Shan was just acting like a self-deluded ass showing off, while Kuei Shan was simply dumbfounded, wondering "What the hell's going on?"
3- Te Shan was enlightened, Kuei Shan a fool.
4- Kuei Shan was enlightened, Te Shan was a dope.

How to tell?

After I hear from folks responding, I will provide my own feelings on this.

I will now tell you my honest opinion.

It is impossible for Yuanwu or Hsueh Tou to have any idea for a fact as to whether Te Shan and/or Kuei Shan were actually enlightened via their reading a few lines of some silly story, obviously fabricated at least in part (e.g., where it reports Te Shan's inner thoughts and motivations), obviously told in a way to emphasize it dramatically, that happened 150 years before they were even born if it happened at all! Many of the Koans we will read are the same.

They are not historical events or, even if they are based on some actual event, there is no way to know really what what going on in the heads of Te Shan and Kuei Shan. Sorry, Zen Masters are not mind readers (despite rumors otherwise), so it is ridiculous to claim that anyone can truly know the motivations of Te Shan and Kuei Shan.

So, what is going on here?

First, there is an aspect of going along with reputation and common opinion on the matter (e.g., I don't particularly like Taylor Swift, but because I hear she is so popular, and all my friends like her, I convince myself that she is wonderful and like her too.) This happens a lot in the Zen world. Also, the opposite happens, where a master takes a "contrarian" approach to be contrarian (e.g., because everyone likes Taylor Swift, I will be into some obscure Indies band.) Also, something things just resonate with some people: Maybe I really like Taylor Swift, or the Indie band really rings my bell! It is just what strikes me as good, just my personal taste, you can disagree!

Second, there is background to both stories, other legends about Te Shan and Kuei Shan (such as the "burning the Diamond Sutra" story, the "blowing out the lamp" story) that provide clues that these are people who are enlightened according to those actions. Thus, if they were enlightened in those other stories, they probably are in this one too. However, of course, Dogen did not feel that enlightenment is a permanent "once and forever done" condition. Even though enlightenment might be said to be "timeless" in the absolute, here is the messy world we can act like a saint or sage one minute, but like a cruel fool the next.

However, what if it is a real story, and some fellow barges in and pulls a stunt like Te Shan did? Is he a clown, a guy trying to show how enlightened he is, or is he sincere? Same question Kuei Shan? How to know?

Well, even though a Zen master is not a mind reader, in a real situation, it is possible to tell something from just general demeanor, their confidence, whether the person seems "defensive" when challenged, etc. In other words, it is usually possible to identify truly wise and compassionate people because their wisdom and compassion seems authentic, pervades their behavior and shines through. In fact (and while there are conmen who can fake it, as our political scene shows), you can usually tell someone who "walks the walk" and really means what they do, from people who are faking or deluded in their actions. Maybe you cannot tell right away (so, for example, I think it almost impossible really to judge someone in a single meeting like in this week's Koan), but you can tell who is "real" by interacting with the people for a long time. In this case, they guy just barges in, they never met before ... it really would be hard to tell the guy's motivations.

It is one reason, for example, that our "Priest Training Program" at Treeleaf takes so long, especially as we work at a distance: With time, and constant interaction day by day, you can get a real sense of people while ... with time ... the bad apples, fakers, those with bad motivations, those who don't have the right attitude, will drop away naturally, end up revealing their real motivations, or just not stick it out. The priest training system is designed to be like a winnow, the tool that separates chaff from wheat with shaking and time ...

. screening-barley-seed450.jpg

However, even if this is a "made up" story, the wisdom it tries to convey is REAL as REAL CAN BE! In a temple room filled with hundreds of people, there is also "nothing and nobody here." Greetings can be silent, holding up a mat and a stick, and that says more than 10,000 words sometimes. Thus, the story itself is worthwhile for the lesson it conveys.

So, I really don't know if one, both or neither were enlightened. I think that Te Shan acted quite a bit like a disruptive ass in barging in, making a big show of things, and barging out. He then realized his rudeness, so came back. Maybe Hsueh Tou was enlightened, maybe he was just confused when he reached for his fly whisk. As Freud said, "Sometimes a fly whisk is just a fly whisk."

I think that all the responses above are good in their own way. I must say that one response above really resonated with me ...

In one case Te Shan is an enlightened master, in the other case he is prideful and arrogant fool.

Maybe they are one and the same person, Kuei Shan and Te Shan, Te Shan and Kuei Shan, me and you, you and me, sometimes a fool and sometimes enlightened, sometimes enlightened and sometimes a fool, an enlightened fool. A fallible human. A stumbling dancer in need of compassion.

The moon shines bright outside my window as the clouds drift by. Compassion and at-one-ment for all.

Gassho, J
stlah