Ejō asked: "Is this what is meant by the prātimokṣa precepts [i.e., the precepts that lead to emancipation from the evil actions of body, word, and mind]?"
　　 Dōgen said: "Yes, but while such a view [i.e., the killing of the cat as a means of bringing enlightenment to others] is all right, it would be better not to hold it."

　　 Understanding this ambivalence about the cat-cutting act requires an appreciation of Dōgen's view of the Buddhist precepts. On the one hand, one finds numerous admonitions throughout the Shōbōgenzō Zuimonki to uphold the precepts. Indeed, immediately upon concluding their discussion on the Nan-ch'üan story, Ejō and Dōgen launch into a detailed conversation about the nature of violating the precepts and the actions required to rectify such violations. Dōgen stresses the need for repentance of one's sins and for taking the precepts again, thereby enabling the sinner to regain purity. The very last exchange in section 1.6 demonstrates Dōgen's emphasis on the precepts:

Ejō asked: "If repentance of the seven grave sins is allowed, is it permissible to receive the precepts afterward?"
　　 Dōgen answered: "Yes... Once a person's repentance has been accepted, he must receive the precepts again. Even in the case of the grave sins, anyone who repents should be permitted to receive the precepts again if he so desires. Should even a Bodhisattva himself violate the precepts, he must be given the precepts again, since he has done this for the sake of others."

Dōgen holds up before the monk the bodhisattva ideal as exemplary for one's conduct: taking up the precepts for the sake of all sentient beings.

　　 On the other hand, Dōgen's instructional exchanges with Ejō indicate that he is not attached to the precepts in matters of morality. For Dōgen, right moral action varies according to the circumstances, which include not only the situation encountered but the capacity of the individual to respond. In the Nan-ch'üan story, the circumstances concern the killing, or not killing, of the cat from the perspective of the enlightened mind. The exchange above more explicitly addresses whether or

p. 394 Who is Arguing about the Cat? Moral Action and Enlightenment according to Dōgen Philosophy East and West, Vol. 47, No. 3 (July 1997)

not, from this perspective, an evil act like cutting the cat can be a means of bringing enlightenment to others. Without denying that this act violates the Buddhist precept against killing, Dōgen acknowledges the validity of this possibility.

　　 Yet even as he affirms the validity of this view, Dōgen remarks that "it would be better not to hold it." Though perhaps this appears as a somewhat puzzling qualification in light of all that has preceded it, Dōgen's remark is understandable on at least two levels. First of all, Dōgen can be seen as cautioning Ejō not to allow this view to become yet one more obstacle to seeing the situation as it really is and thereby hindering the ability to respond to a similar situation in an open and enlightened fashion. To hold onto the view could very well lead one to fixate on this method in similar circumstances -- or worse, to employ this method in a totally inappropriate situation.

　　 Furthermore, Dōgen's response indicates that he does not look at the cat-killing act as it has been cast by Ejō. "Such a view" -- the killing of the cat as a means of bringing enlightenment to others -- is all right, but it is not his frame of reference for looking at the cat-killing act. In other words, prima facie it may appear that Dōgen is primarily concerned with, and indeed addressing, the morality of employing a violation of the precepts for the sake of enlightening others. Dōgen does not deny the validity of this perspective; indeed, he affirms the cat-killing act as a Buddha act. But he is in fact transcending this perspective, and in commenting to Ejō that it would be better not to hold it, he is suggesting that he do the same. Dōgen, as we have seen, is rather concerned with the cat-killing act as evocative of "without-thinking."

　　 We noted earlier how Dōgen momentarily digresses from his exposition about without-thinking in order to critique Nan-ch'üan's performance as recounted in the traditional story. We now turn to an analysis of how Dōgen said he would have acted if he were in Nan-ch'üan's place, facing the uncomprehending assembly. Recall again Dōgen's remark:

When the assembly could not reply and if I had been Nan-ch'üan, I would have released the cat, since the assemblage had already said they could not answer. An old Master has said: "In expressing full function, there are no fixed methods."

　　 Dōgen concedes that Nan-ch'üan's act is an expression of manifesting Nan-ch'üan's enlightenment. Yet Dōgen rarely contented himself with merely reciting familiar Buddhist stories and offering up the subsequent traditional interpretations. So even as Dōgen explains the nature of Nan-ch'üan's action, he seeks to transcend it. Understanding how he does so requires us to return again to a consideration of the circumstances of the cat-killing action.