p. 395 Who is Arguing about the Cat? Moral Action and Enlightenment according to Dōgen Philosophy East and West, Vol. 47, No. 3 (July 1997)

　　 Remember how the story unfolds: Nan-ch'üan holds up the cat and tells the assembly that if they can give the proper response, he will save the cat; if not, he will kill it. Perhaps it would seem too obvious a point to observe that when the assembly could not answer, Nan-ch'üan did precisely what he said he would do: he cut the cat. Yet we might ponder for a moment precisely why he did so. After all, was Nan-ch'üan bound to carry out the act, just because he said he would do so? Could he not have acted otherwise?

　　 Dōgen's own proposed response helps us to see the point he is trying to make via the words of the old Master: "In expressing full function, there are no fixed methods." In other words, there is no fixed formula for expressing and eliciting without-thinking. Nan-ch'üan, in Dōgen's view, betrayed an attachment to only two positions -- to kill or not kill the cat. He was "fixated," we might say, by these two possibilities. This is evidenced by the fact that he does indeed carry out one of them precisely as he said he would.

　　 Dōgen's own suggested course of action, on the other hand, is a classic expression of Buddhist detachment applied to the situation. At first glance, his proposed response may not seem like a transcending of Nan-ch'üan's position, because it sounds like the other position to which Nan-ch'üan was attached -- namely, to not kill the cat. Yet it actually does transcend Nan-ch'üan's position when the situational context is taken into account. Nan-ch'üan carries out the cat-killing act because the assembly could not answer, just as he said he would. This suggests that if the assembly had managed to answer, then he would have released the cat. Yet Dōgen indicates an option beyond that of Nan-ch'üan, that is, the releasing of the cat when the assembly could not answer.

　　 So Dōgen affirms Nan-ch'üan's act as an act of the Buddha, as expressive of enlightenment. However, even as he acknowledges this enlightenment, he challenges its depth of attainment. In Dōgen's mind, releasing the cat would have revealed a spiritual progress superior to Nan-ch'üan's. But why does he think so?

　　 First of all, we must remember that for Dōgen even the first moment of zazen unfolds enlightenment. But if one is to pursue the Dharma, one's practice must continue so that one's enlightenment can deepen. No one, not even an accomplished Zen Master such as Nan-ch'üan, has reached the point where practice is unnecessary.

　　 Recall our earlier observation about the role the precepts play for the Zen practitioner: they are prescriptive from the perspective of initial instruction, and descriptive from the perspective of enlightenment. Thus one's continuing practice, one's deepening enlightenment, results in a concomitant advance in one's moral cultivation. So we may say that the more one practices and thus actualizes enlightenment, the more perfect the precepts become in describing the person acting from enlightenment.

p. 396 Who is Arguing about the Cat? Moral Action and Enlightenment according to Dōgen Philosophy East and West, Vol. 47, No. 3 (July 1997)

　　 To some extent, "do no evil" (shoakumakusa) does describe Nan-ch'üan's act because, as we saw, the evil of the cat-killing act was exhausted in the very moment of the act, and no subsequent evil was produced, according to Dōgen. (This, we recall, is possible because from the standpoint of enlightenment, cause and effect can be seen as discontinuous.) Thus Nan-ch'üan "does/produces no evil" that could continue along the karmic chain of causation. Yet "do no evil" is even more apropos of Dōgen's act, because, of course, no evil act transpires (the cat is not killed), and no subsequent qualifier need be appended to the precept describing it. Furthermore, the important Buddhist precept against killing is descriptive of the former, and not the latter, act. Thus, the course of action proposed by Dōgen is more perfectly described by the precepts and reflects a superior depth of cultivation.

　　 We find here an echo of a point Dōgen makes elsewhere in the Shōbōgenzō Zuimonki: "In both benefiting others and practicing yourself, to discard the inferior and adopt the superior comprises the good action of the Bodhisattva." [20] Dōgen tirelessly admonishes his disciples to practice unceasingly and strive further and further toward an unending moral and spiritual excellence. In Dōgen's view, a rigorous adherence to the precepts is descriptive of the moral character of the advanced Zen practitioner. Thus, any breaking of the precepts usually suggests a lesser spiritual attainment -- though it may indeed proceed from enlightenment.

　　 Dōgen can allow for a precept-breaking action to be "right," in some ultimate sense, if it serves to manifest and evoke enlightenment. But compared with some of the colorfully violent actions performed by certain Masters that have been handed down in the Zen tradition, Dōgen's allowance for the occasional breaking of the precepts is fairly conservative. Furthermore, even a Bodhisattva in such circumstances "must be given the precepts again, since he had done this [i.e. violated the precepts] for the sake of others."