A Misinterpretation in the First Case of the HEKIGAN ROKU Made by Modern Zen Scholars

The misinterpretation in the first case of the Hekigan Rokul concerns the term "新羅" which was used by Engo in his remarks (T.E.T. 48, p.140a); in Chinese it bears a double meaning: "Korea" and a "new sieve".

Owing to ignorance concerning the second meaning, modern Zen scholars have been explaining it incorrectly and have obscured the gist of the Satori expressed in the whole case.

The phrase "箭過新羅" has already been established as a well-known proverb, even in the Buddhist Dictionary, which also gives the same incorrect explanation: "smc is located far to the east of China; if the arrow is shot to pass through faraway sma, who can know where it falls? This is a metaphor for something ,dth an unknown destination." Such an interpretation is a rather unfortunate mistake!

The German translation (Wilhelm Gundert, Bi Yön Lu, Carl Hanser Verlog, München 1960, p.38, n.l) explains that this is a proverb. Sma is located far to the east and to go towards Silla is to disappear in the ocean at the end :of the world.

The English translation of Case One of the Hekigan Roku (by Daisetsu T. Suzuki, in The Eastern Buddhist new series vol. 1, No.1, September 1965) the phrase is translated as "The arrow passed to Korea".

And the recent French translation (Michel Belloni, Pi Yen Lou, Tradudion de trois "Ccs" en Tch'an (Zen), Hermes, vol. vii, Paris 1970) also uses a similar expression to that of the German version.

All of these three translators, and others, probably didn't pay much attention to the context of Engo's comments, or, perhaps somebody made this error onlybecause Korea was dose to his country; therefore now, Zen scholars feel confident that the term "新羅" can be nothing else but "Korea". Or, they may think that the words of the Zen masters are always illogical and contradictory, and therefore it is needless to analyse the reason why they used such an expression. Unfortunately, their presupposition is not absolutely correct. As a matter of fact, Zen expressions also follow ineradicable principles; for example, in Case 14, we find that there are three principles: "Usually in the expressions of the Yun-men master, each sentence has three aspects (or principles), i.e. 'universal embracing', 'chasing after the strealI}s of convention' and 'cutting asunder all streams'." (T.E.T. 48, p.154b)

Now, let us check the context of Engo's comments:

According to the scriptural teaching, absolute truth makes clear the nonexistent aspect of things, while conditional truth makes clear the opposite aspect. The ultimate principle of the holy truth upholds the nonduality of the absolute and the conditional. This is the consummation of the scriptural teaching and is considered the crowning mystery. The Emperor now brings (this position) out here and asks Bodhidharma, "What is the ultimate principle of the holy truth?" Dharma answers, "Vast emptiness and nothing holy." Dharma cuts all of it asunder with one stroke of the sword. (T.E.T. 48, p.140b)

Now, we come to the point that Dharma's answer evidently falls under the third of the above-mentioned three principles, i.e. "cutting asunder all streams". Therefore Engo said. "Dharma cuts all of it asunder with one stroke of the sword."

My interpretation of . Engo's remark "箭過新羅", is that he had no intention whatsoever of leading people to wander about in the "vast ocean of the far east without destination!" On the contrary, he used this phrase brilliantly, because it bears a triple significance: (1) The "arrow" is compared to Bodhidharma's answer in that it is so rough and bold, yet, it is so sharp. (2) The "new sieve" is compared to the Emperor's question in that it is so tight and of such a fine mesh that any rough and ready answer could not pass through it. From this comparison we can also see what kind of answer the Emperor .was expecting. He was expecting a very analytical answer, which would be as fine as flour. (3) The verb "pass through" is compared to sudden and in discriminative enlightenment. Bodhidharma in his treatment of the Emperor's question is just like Alexander the Great, who treated the problem of the Gordian knot by cutting itasunder in one slash.

"The arrow passes through a new sieve, one can suddenly understand." "Yet, the Emperor failed to understand." Because he thought that he asked what is the "ultimate truth" and Dharma answered with the "absolute" one; but, he simply forgot that if one does not discern, then, anyone of the three aspects is the ultimate truth; otherwise, if one splits the perfect truth into three pieces and chooses one as the "ultimate truth", how could that be the reat "ultimate"? Therefore, Engo said in his later comments: "As soon as any discrimination arises, it is just like a hawk trying to pass through a new sieve." (T.E.T. 48, p.14la) How could it succeed! The third Zen Patriarch gave a well known proverb: "To attain ultimate truth is not difficult, but such attainment is doomed by choice (discrimination)." (T.E.T. 51, p.457a)

On the other hand, I do not deny that the term "新羅" can also be interpreted as "Korea"; for example, in Case 71, we can find the phrase " 箭過新羅國" (the arrow passes through Korea). But, this phrase is used as ridicule, it is quite different from the phrase under discussion.

Fortunately, I have found two counterparts to the phrase "箭過新羅" as evidences to prove the correctness of my interpretation: One is in the same text, Case 36, it is " 頭過新羅" (The head passes through a new sieve) (T.E.T. 48, p.174b); this means-impossible. If somebody wants to interprete this as "The head passes through Korea", then we have complete nonsense! Unless he arbitrarily treats the character "頭" as a misprint. Another evidence is found in a text entitled "文殊指南圖讚" (Laudatory verses on the pictures of Manjusri's guidance). The last verse of the last stanza is: "分明雞子過新羅" (you are simply like a chicken trying to pass through a new sieve). (T.E.T. 45, p.806b)

If modern Zen scholars treat Engo's remark "鷂子過新羅" as "The hawk passes through Korea" because they think that this is reasonable, since a hawk has two wings; then, of course, one could say a hawk could fly from China toKorea. But here we have a chicken; what reason is there for a chicken to pass through Korea?

My conclusion is that the former Chinese Zen masters were not fool, and the fault lies only with modern Zen scholars.