Real Life with Ryuei

Unpacking Tianping the board carrier

Hi everyone, I just noticed that this is my 100th entry. Yay! Anyway, I think it is only fair to comment on this koan as it really is kind of obscure. My original statements and the koan will remain. These additional reflection or attempts to unpack the koan will be in bold below:

In Zen Buddhist literature there are many references to "board-carriers", those who have a one-sided view. Most often in Zen, this refers to this who have become attached to emptiness. They no longer take cognizance of convention (that is to say of the provisional reality) and have lost the Middle Way that recognizes that not only is form emptiness, but emptiness is also form. It seems to me that many Zen koans (a word that means something like "case-study") are about how the Zen masters helped their disciples realize either emptiness (the no-selfness of people and things) or how to relate concretely and immediately in terms of provisional realities, or how to maintain the Middle Way by not coming down one-sidedly into either the empty or the provisional.

A board-carrier could also be someone who has attached to a particular view, including the view that everyone is wrong. In order to hold that view they would have to make the presumption that they are themselves exempt because they hold the right view that everyone is wrong. Shakyamuni Buddha referred to such people as "eel-wrigglers" who taught that there was nothing to teach but who nevertheless held themselves forth as teachers. I believe that Shariputra and Maudgalyayana's former teacher, Sanjaya, was one of these. In any case, here is the story of one such eel-wriggling or board-carrying person which I have taken from The True Dharma Eye: Zen Master Dogen's Three Hundred Koans (though the case also appears as number 98 in the Blue Cliff Record):

Congyi of Tianping, during his traveling, visited Siming Monastery. He often said, "Don't say that in the present time you can encounter the Buddhadharma. When we look for someone who can, it is impossible to find one."

So even in ancient China there were those who liked to say that the only true thing is that there is no truth. The only correct position is that everyone is wrong. But as with all such relativist positions, the one saying it is either making an exception of him or herself, or doesn't realize that such a position, to be consistent, must invalidate itself. In other words, they are either hypocritically claiming to be the only person who is right in a world full of wrong, or they are sawing off the very limb they are sitting on without realizing it.

One day, Tianping came out of the dharma hall. Abbot Xiyuan Siming called out to him, "Tianping!"

Tianping looked up.

Xiyuan said, "Wrong."

Xiyuan Siming was a wily old Zen Master who decided to have some fun with Tianping and perhaps jostle him awake. This method of calling someone and when they respond to hit them or otherwise upbraid them is one that pops up a lot in Zen stories. It seems to make no sense. It is only common sense to look up when your name is called. In fact, in most cases it would be rude to do otherwise. On the other hand, this is exactly the kind of automatic unthinking response that most of us who sleepwalk through life spend every moment doing. Not even just in social situations either. We constantly are automatically responding to our environment in an unthinking way whenever it "calls out" to us. This is what the Zen Masters are trying to point out. This is why they yell or smack or call out "wrong" (as in this case) to the disciples whenever they just respond like this on automatic. This is a wake up call. In this case, Xiyuan Siming is pointing out to Tianping that despite his views, he is just like everyone else - just doing what comes naturally whether it is beneficial or not.

Tianping took a few steps.

Again Xiyuan said, "Wrong."

So of course, Tianping quite naturally concludes that Xiyuan is just messing with him. And of course he is, for his own good. In any case, the one side of the equation is to respond to form or the provisional truth of things by responding when called. On the one hand, that is correct. On the other hand, it is a one-sided following after form. So Tianping decides to ignore the call, and then he falls into the emptiness side. This can also be correct in the sense of detachment and liberation, but on the other hand it is also wrong. It is one sided clinging to emptiness, a cop-out in this case, and not really an authentic response. Again, he is wrong. The Middle Way has not yet been found, realized, or actualized.

Tianping went close to him. Xiyuan said, "Are these two wrongs my wrongs or your wrongs?"

Tianping said, "My wrongs, Master."

Xiyuan said, "Wrong."

Tianping figures out that he was hooked and allows himself to be reeled in. Xiyuan tests him again with a trick question (that I will admit I am not sure I would have had a "correct" answer to either). Tianping falls into it and shows that he is still fixated on right and wrong. He figures that if he admits to being "wrong" he will then be "right." Wrong again. Tianping is still on the hook. Still hasn't transcended right and wrong. Still hasn't found the Middle Way in the living moment.

Tianping gave up. Xiyuan said, Senior monastic, stay here for a while, and let us examine these wrongs."

Xiyuan offers to let Tianping off the hook. Or, to look at it another way, he offers to join Tianping on the hook so they can both hop off it together. This reminds me of what my sensei, the Ven. Ryusho Matsuda, says to people who join our temple when he bestows jukai (the Diamond Chalice Precept) and the Omandala to them: "Let us study together."

Tianping walked away. Later he became abbot of Tianping Monastery and said, "A long time ago, when I was traveling, I was blown by karmic winds to Elder Xiyuan's assembly. He pointed out my two wrongs. He asked me to stay over the summer and examine these wrongs. I did not realize them as wrong at that time. But when I headed south, I knew right away why he had said 'Wrong.'" (pp.386-387)

Is Tianping regretting that he did not stay and work himself free? Or is he claiming that he figured it out later, like a person who doesn't get the punchline until the next day? Is he right or wrong about this? How about you?

John Daido Loori added his own commentary and verse to this story, but I think I will just let the story stand as it is for now. But I recommend looking that book up.

This is what I said when I initially posted this story. But now I have bared my own belly to it and thus compounded my error.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

Posted by Ryuei at November 10, 2006 09:13 AM