The Way of Zen - Alan Watts [84]
The final group of koan are concerned with the “Five Ranks” (go-i)–a schematic view of the relations between relative knowledge and absolute knowledge, thing-events (shih) and underlying principle (li). The originator of the scheme was T’ung-shan (807–869), but it arises from the contacts of Zen with the Hua-yen (Japanese, Kegon) School, and the doctrine of the Five Ranks is closely related to that of the fourfold Dharmadhatu.10 The Ranks are often represented in terms of the relative positions of lord and servant or host and guest, standing respectively for the underlying principle and the thing-events. Thus we have:
1. The lord looks down at the servant.
2. The servant looks up at the lord.
3. The lord.
4. The servant.
5. The lord and the servant converse together.
Suffice it to say that the first four correspond to the four Dharmadhatu of the Hua-yen School, though the relationship is somewhat complex, and the fifth to “naturalness,” In other words, one may regard the universe, the Dharmadhatu, from a number of equally valid points of view–as many, as one, as both one and many, and as neither one nor many. But the final position of Zen is that it does not take any special viewpoint, and yet is free to take every viewpoint according to the circumstances. In the words of Lin-chi:
Sometimes I take away the man (i.e., the subject) but do not take away the circumstances (i.e., the object). Sometimes I take away the circumstances but do not take away the man. Sometimes I take away both the man and the circumstances. Sometimes I take away neither the man nor the circumstances.11 f
And sometimes, he might have added, I just do nothing special (wu-shih).12
Koan training comes to its conclusion in the stage of perfect naturalness of freedom in both the absolute and the relative worlds, but because this freedom is not opposed to the conventional order, but is rather a freedom which “upholds the world” (lokasamgraha), the final phase of study is the relationship of Zen to the rules of social and monastic life. As Yun-men once asked, “In such a wide world, why answer the bell and put on ceremonial robes?”13 Another master’s answer in quite a different context applies well here–“If there is any reason for it you may cut off my head!” For the moral act is significantly moral only when it is free, without the compulsion of a reason or necessity. This is also the deepest meaning of the Christian doctrine of free will, for to act “in union with God” is to act, not from the constraint of fear or pride, nor from hope of reward, but with the baseless love of the “unmoved mover.”
To say that the koan system has certain dangers or drawbacks is only to say that anything can be misused. It is a highly sophisticated and even institutionalized technique, and therefore lends itself to affectation and artificiality. But so does any technique, even when so untechnical as Bankei’s method of no method. This, too, can become a fetish. Yet it is important to be mindful of the points at which the drawbacks are most likely to arise, and it would seem that in koan training there are two.
The first is to insist that the koan is the “only way” to a genuine realization of Zen. Of course, one may beg the question by saying that Zen, over and above the experience of awakening, is precisely the style of handling Buddhism which the koan embody. But in this case the Soto School is not Zen, and no Zen is to be found anywhere in the world outside the particular tradition of the Rinzai branch. So defined, Zen has no universality and becomes as exotic and culturally conditioned as No drama or the practice of Chinese calligraphy. From the standpoint of the West, such Zen will appeal only to fanciers of “Nipponery,” to romanticists who like to play at being Japanese. Not