Hyakujo said: “The enlightened man is one with the law of causation.” At the words of Hyakujo the old man was enlightened....
...”I am emancipated,” he said, paying homage with a deep bow. “I am no more a fox, but I have to leave my body in my dwelling place behind this mountain. Please perform my funeral as a monk.” The he disappeared.
The next day Hyakujo gave an order through the chief monk to prepare to attend the funeral of a monk. “No one was sick in the infirmary,” wondered the monks. “What does our teacher mean?”
After dinner Hyakujo led the monks out and around the mountain. In a cave, with his staff he poked out the corpse of an old fox and then performed the ceremony of cremation.
That evening Hyakujo gave a talk to the monks and told this story about the law of causation.
Obaku, upon hearing this story, asked Hyakujo: “I understand that a long time ago because a certain person gave a wrong Zen answer he became a fox for five hundred rebirths. Now I was to ask: If some modern master is asked many questions, and he always gives the right answer, what will become of him?”
Hyakujo said: “You come here near me and I will tell you.”
Obaku went near Hyakujo and slapped the teacher’s face with this hand, for he knew this was the answer his teacher intended to give him.
Hyakujo clapped his hands and laughed at the discernment. “I thought a Persian had a red beard,” he said, “and now I know a Persian who has a red beard.”
I’ve always thought this was one of the hardest koans in the Mumonkan. Even knowing the basics of foxes—long-lived, nigh immortal, supernatural trickster magical beasts—doesn’t help much at all.
And even when you think you perhaps understand the causation bits, you still have no idea what on earth that Persian stuff is about!
Counting on Wumen’s commentary to clarify things? Well, he makes the causality a bit clearer, but leaves the rest as mud:
`The enlightened man is not subject.′ How can this answer make the monk a fox?
`The enlightened man is at one with the law of causation.′ How can this answer make the fox emancipated?
To understand clearly one has to have just one eye.
Controlled or not controlled?
The same dice shows two faces.
Not controlled or controlled,
Both are a grievous error.
(Incidentally, no hat tip is merited. That page is rather incomplete.)
EDIT: turns out I’m not the only one who thinks it’s unusually hard. Wikipedia has:
“The meaning of the kōan has been the object of intense debate and scrutiny within Zen due to its complexity and multi-layered themes. It was rated by Zen Master Hakuin (1686-1769) as a nantō kōan, one that is “difficult to pass through” but has the ability to facilitate “postenlightenment cultivation” or “realization beyond realization” (shōtaichōyō).[1] Important themes include causality (karma in Buddhism), the power of language, reincarnation, and the folklore elements involved in the insertion of the fox into the tale.”
“And even when you think you perhaps understand the causation bits, you still have no idea what on earth that Persian stuff is about!”
I’ve always thought that it would be roughly equivalent to “I believed something without ever having any direct evidence, and now I see that the belief was accurate”. Essentially, that the student finally demonstrated conclusively that he understood the process behind the responses of Zen teachers.
But there are probably multiple levels of interpretation, of which that is only the most obvious.
Let’s start by hearing the rest of it...
...”I am emancipated,” he said, paying homage with a deep bow. “I am no more a fox, but I have to leave my body in my dwelling place behind this mountain. Please perform my funeral as a monk.” The he disappeared.
The next day Hyakujo gave an order through the chief monk to prepare to attend the funeral of a monk. “No one was sick in the infirmary,” wondered the monks. “What does our teacher mean?”
After dinner Hyakujo led the monks out and around the mountain. In a cave, with his staff he poked out the corpse of an old fox and then performed the ceremony of cremation.
That evening Hyakujo gave a talk to the monks and told this story about the law of causation.
Obaku, upon hearing this story, asked Hyakujo: “I understand that a long time ago because a certain person gave a wrong Zen answer he became a fox for five hundred rebirths. Now I was to ask: If some modern master is asked many questions, and he always gives the right answer, what will become of him?”
Hyakujo said: “You come here near me and I will tell you.”
Obaku went near Hyakujo and slapped the teacher’s face with this hand, for he knew this was the answer his teacher intended to give him.
Hyakujo clapped his hands and laughed at the discernment. “I thought a Persian had a red beard,” he said, “and now I know a Persian who has a red beard.”
[fin]
HT to Zen Corner
I’ve always thought this was one of the hardest koans in the Mumonkan. Even knowing the basics of foxes—long-lived, nigh immortal, supernatural trickster magical beasts—doesn’t help much at all.
And even when you think you perhaps understand the causation bits, you still have no idea what on earth that Persian stuff is about!
Counting on Wumen’s commentary to clarify things? Well, he makes the causality a bit clearer, but leaves the rest as mud:
(Incidentally, no hat tip is merited. That page is rather incomplete.)
EDIT: turns out I’m not the only one who thinks it’s unusually hard. Wikipedia has:
“And even when you think you perhaps understand the causation bits, you still have no idea what on earth that Persian stuff is about!”
I’ve always thought that it would be roughly equivalent to “I believed something without ever having any direct evidence, and now I see that the belief was accurate”. Essentially, that the student finally demonstrated conclusively that he understood the process behind the responses of Zen teachers.
But there are probably multiple levels of interpretation, of which that is only the most obvious.
Per Wikipedia’s translation
That surely refers to Daruma.