For Dōgen, genjōkōan is none other than prajñā, or "intuitive wisdom." Furthermore, Dōgen is in accord with the Mahāyāna tradition in arguing that prajñā and karunā, "compassion," are "not-two." He also holds to the traditional Mahayana conception of right moral action as proceeding from prajñā/karunā. Thus Dōgen sees right moral action as properly proceeding from seeing things as they really are, which is manifest to us in moments of without-thinking.

　　 The "Zazenshin" passage above, in conjunction with others, evidences the fact that the primary locus for the unfolding of this without-thinking is zazen. So zazen is the primary form of moral self-cultivation. But kōans are also employed in the Zen tradition as an efficacious method for developing and testing without-thinking. When a Master tests a student on a kōan, it is a test of the quality of the state of without-thinking, not the truth of the proposition or the content of the statement. Nan-ch'üan's koan was delivered as a test, and Dōgen is favorably assessing Chao-chou's expression of without-thinking. This is the same

p. 387 Who is Arguing about the Cat? Moral Action and Enlightenment according to Dōgen Philosophy East and West, Vol. 47, No. 3 (July 1997)

thing as saying that Dōgen acknowledges the act as expressive of Chao-Chou's enlightenment, since this without-thinking is none other than "seeing things as they really are" and the "intuitive wisdom/compassion" of the Buddha. Thus the discussion of this kōan is brought around to the same theme underlying the kōan of Hyakujō's fox, namely the character of enlightenment.

　　 Turning again to the text, we can also make sense of Dōgen's further comments on the cat-killing kōan. Dōgen seeks to improve on the challenge issued by Nan-ch'üan:

If I had been Nan-ch'üan, I would have said: "Even if you can speak, I will cut the cat, and even if you cannot speak, I will still cut it. Who is arguing about the cat? Who can save the cat?"

"Even if you cannot speak, I will cut the cat" indicates that Dōgen will not accept any answer evolving from the process of "thinking," wherein we may, for example, conceptualize the cat as an object that we can take a stand about and either help or not help. "Even if you cannot speak, I will still cut the cat" indicates that he will also not accept an answer from "not-thinking," that is, a negating attitude toward the process of thinking itself. In other words, the disciples cannot simply ignore -- and thus "answer" -- Dōgen's challenge by not-thinking. "Who is arguing about the cat?" can be read as a rhetorical question pointing out the real concern here -- not the cat, but enlightenment -- while also serving to chastise the monks for wasting time over the cat. "Who can save the cat?" echoes Nan-ch'üan's challenge to demonstrate without-thinking/enlightenment.

　　 Dōgen further notes how he would have answered for the assembly standing before Nan-ch'üan: "We cannot say, Master. Please cut the cat." This would be an acknowledgment and concession of an (unenlightened) assembly that recognizes the invalidity of responding on a thinking or not-thinking level while still unable to respond from without-thinking. But Dōgen then proceeds to say: "Then again I might have said: 'You know how to cut the cat in two with one sword, but you don't know how to cut the cat in one with one sword.'"

　　 In the statement above, Dōgen indicates that he might have offered a counter-challenge to Nan-ch'üan. Zen tradition records several instances of Dharma combat wherein one Master seeks to test and spur the enlightenment of another Master. In this instance, Dōgen maintains that he might have turned the tables on Nan-ch'üan. The sword in this passage pulls double-duty as a metaphor: in the first clause, it refers to the thinking and not-thinking mental functions, and in the second clause it refers to without-thinking. So the counter-challenge translates roughly as: "You know how to 'cut the cat in two' [i.e., objectify the cat, make it an object for discrimination and conceptualization separate from you] with think-

p. 388 Who is Arguing about the Cat? Moral Action and Enlightenment according to Dōgen Philosophy East and West, Vol. 47, No. 3 (July 1997)

ing and/or not thinking, but can you 'cut the cat in one' [i.e., see the cat prior to discrimination and conceptualization and the dualistic rise of self and other] by means of without-thinking?"

　　 Seeking further clarification, Ejō asks: "What is cutting the cat in one with one sword?" In other words, what is the cat, viewed from without-thinking, that is, prior to discrimination, conceptualization, and the separation of self and other? Dōgen's reply is simple: "The cat itself." Quite simply, before the operations of thinking and not-thinking, we experience, via the operations of without-thinking, "the cat itself," that is, "the cat as it really is."