Dogen on Joshu’s “Cypress Tree” – Part 1 [adapted from my previous post at ZFI]

—–

Great Master Joshu once had a monk who asked him, “What did our Ancestral Master Bodhidharma come from the West for?”

The Master replied, “For a cypress tree in the courtyard.”
(Translated by Hubert Nearman from Shobogenzo, Hakujushi)

This perennial koan has long been a favorite of Zen masters. The saying’s of Joshu in general, have often been praised by the masters for their directness as well as their profound insight. What is Joshu getting at here? He seems to have seen directly to the core of the monk’s doubt-as evidenced by his ‘follow up’ request not to “use some physical object to point it out.” Clearly, if the monk jumps to the conclusion that the “cypress tree in the courtyard” is something outside of him, he has not yet awakened to the truth. In his initial question to Joshu, this monk seems to reveal some doubt concerning the Zen axiom that “the other is no other than myself.” Dogen points out that this koan is what all Buddhas use to “skillfully lead trainees”:

Although this particular koan sprang from the mind of Joshu, ultimately it is what all Buddhas have habitually put into practice with Their whole being. In doing so, They skillfully lead trainees by asking, “Who is the One in Charge?” The main points that you need to recognize at present are the principles that a cypress tree in the courtyard does not refer to a concrete object and that ‘a cypress tree’ is not one particular person. This is why, when the monk said, “Venerable Monk, pray, do not use some physical object to point it out to a person like me,” Joshu replied, “I am not pointing it out to you by using a physical object.” What venerable monk is limited to being a ‘venerable monk’? Because he is not so limited, he will be Joshu’s ‘I’. And what I is limited to being that ‘I’? And even if he were so limited, he would still be referring to a person. And what physical object would not be limited by Bodhidharma’s intention of coming from the West, since a physical object must certainly have been what he intended by coming from the West? Even so, his intention in coming from the West was not dependent on some physical object, nor was it necessarily for the Wondrous Heart of Nirvana, which is the Treasure House of the Eye of the True Teaching, that the Ancestral Master came from the West. Nor was it for someone’s heart or mind, or for a Buddha, or for some concrete thing.
(Translated by Hubert Nearman from Shobogenzo, Hakujushi)

How provocative and insightful Dogen’s words are here. His rhetorical statement, “What venerable monk is limited to being a ‘venerable monk’?”, is one of the hallmark characteristics of Dogen’s Shobogenzo. He points out one corner—thus leading us to infer the other three. Could we also say, “What cypress tree is limited to being a ‘cypress tree’?” How about, “What mistake is limited to being a ‘mistake’?” Dogen seems to indicate the validity of this implication when he goes on to suggest that “paying close attention to his mistakes in making mistakes” he was in fact able to avoid attachment to duality—in spite of the fact that he still had not “been able to experience a mutual encounter with his Master.”

Now, “What did our Ancestral Master Bodhidharma come from the West for?” was not the monk’s asking some idle question, nor was it a matter of two people being able to see things alike. It was a matter of one person—namely, Joshu’s monk—who had still not been able to experience a mutual encounter with his Master, so how much could he himself have actually realized? Or, to put it another way, the monk had always been ‘that kind of person’. Therefore, even though he was mistaken time after time, because he was mistaken time after time, he was paying close attention to his mistakes in making mistakes. Would this not be his hearing what is false and his taking its ramifications in hand?

Because his openhearted spirit was devoid of any attachment to duality, the monk was a veritable ‘cypress tree in the courtyard’. When there is no physical object, there can be no ‘cypress tree in the courtyard’. Even though the cypress tree is a physical object, Joshu said, “I am not pointing it out to you by using a physical object,” and his disciple said, “Venerable Monk, pray, do not use some physical object to point it out to a person like me.” The monk was not like some old ancestral tomb. And because he was not an old tomb to begin with, he was able to bring It forth from where It had been entombed. And because It had been brought forth from where It had been entombed, this was comparable to Joshu’s saying to his disciple, “Come on, return my efforts!” And because he was saying, in effect, “Come on, show me It!” he said, “I am not pointing it out to you by using a physical object, so, come on, show It to me!” Well, what will the monk use to point it out with? It could be by his responding, “I am also like this.”
(Translated by Hubert Nearman from Shobogenzo, Hakujushi)

Imagine sitting in Dogen’s assembly here. Dogen says that what Joshu wants the monk to do is to “Come on, show me It!” “Show It to me!” Wow! How would we respond to such an attractive challenge? Dogen suggests that the monk could respond with, “I am also like this.” If the monk did so, what would be his meaning? How would Joshu respond—for that matter, if “the other is no other”, can we make Joshu respond right here, right now?

To be continued….

Peace,

Ted