Trading Dialogue for Lodging

Provided he makes and wins an argument about Buddhism with those who live there any wandering monk can remain in a Zen temple. If he is defeated, he has to move on.

In a temple in Japan two brothers monks were dwelling together. The elder one was learned, but the younger one was stupid and had but one eye.

A wandering monk came and asked for lodging properly challenging them to a debate about the sublime teaching. The elder brother, tired that day from much studying, told the younger one to take his place. ‘Go and request the dialogue in silence,’ he cautioned.

So the young monk and the strange went to the shrine and sat down. Shortly afterwards the traveler rose and went in to the elder brother and said: ‘Your young brother is a wonderful fellow. He defeated me.’

‘Relate the dialogue to me,’ said the elder one.

‘Well,’ explained the traveler,’ first I held up one finger, representing Buddha, the enlightened one. So he held up two fingers, signifying Buddha and his teaching.

I held up three fingers representing Buddha, his teaching, and his followers

living the harmonious life. Then he shook his clenched fist in my face, indicating that all three come from one realization.

Thus he won and so I have no right to remain here.’

With this, the traveler left.

‘Where is that fellow?’ asked the younger one, running in to his elder brother.

“I understand you won the debate.’

‘Won nothing. I’m going to beat him up.’

‘Tell me the subject of the debate,’ asked the elder one.

‘Why, the minute he saw me he held up one finger, insulting me by insinuating that I have only one eye. Since he was a stranger I thought I would be polite to him, so I held up two fingers congratulating him that he had two eyes.

Then the impolite wretch held up three fingers, suggesting that between us we only have three eyes. So I got mad and started to punch him, but he ran out and that ended it.’

Four kinds of persons are hinted here:

One eyed monk, the worldly fool

The wandering debater, the wandering mind

The two eyed monk, the studious but tired, burdened because of studies

The really wise who has used the teaching to become a Buddha and is leading a harmonious life with all

Provided he makes and wins an argument about Buddhism with those who live there any wandering monk can remain in a Zen temple. If he is defeated, he has to move on.

Truth is not a matter of argument. When it is made a subject of argument only fools will eventually win. Never argue with a fool because he will beat you there with his experience. Fools have lot of experience in argumentation. They are stuffed with that. That is why they remain foolish.

What if argument remains inconclusive? Arguments by nature mostly remain inconclusive. In that case will the traveler stay in the fringes of the temple? Half inside, half outside. It is better to either move on or to stay within the temple. But arguments can only keep one in the middle. That middle is unfulfilled from both ways.

People have been arguing about the worldly life being better then spiritual life saying they can enjoy the things of the world because they are no saints. Spiritual debaters have been argumenting about the relevance of only spiritual world and abhor the worldly pleasures. In reality whatever is appealing to heart is the way forward for one. Whether one knows or not, whether one arguments this way or that way one is moving towards Zen ultimately.

How can one enter through arguments the temple of Zen – the place of meditation. Argumentation leaves one incapable of meditating. And in a way one can come to temple of Zen only after meditation. That is also true. Once you are done with all the argumentation then only you can enter this temple. The purpose of this argument is to show futility of argumentation. If one can show that then one has won the debate. One has to really prove that one is beyond debate now.

Zen happens when the argumentator has died.

You can prove anything through argumentation. Then on which Truth one will meditate. Through centuries people have been proving their view of Truth as true.

If you can drink the tea and empty your cup then you are into Zen temple. Nobody has to send you invitation. You are automatically in. Debaters are passing the tea without drinking it. As much old it gets, it starts to stink even more.

There is a word in local languages of India. That is Buddhu. This comes from the word Buddha. This name, designation is given to such debaters. And if they mould their life based on philosophical debates then are definitely Buddhus.

Spiritual debates are for showing the way of heart. Ultimately one should follow heart every moment rather than dry theories. E.g. for saying truth always is not relevant when thieves are chasing a girl…

In a temple in Japan two brothers monks were dwelling together. The elder one was learned, but the younger one was stupid and had but one eye.

The elder monk who was having two eyes and was occupied in studies was also a fool in a way. He had two eyes with which he was seeing the world and the world behind this world. But he was seeing them through two different eyes. So for him those two were still different realms. He can anytime close one eye and neglect one of the world. When he is studying scriptures he is not part of this world. So this exercise is tiring him. Real realization is the matter of seeing with the third eye. Only one eye used but that one eyes sees the unity of this world and the other world. When there are no two different worlds then where is the need for two eyes.

One eyed means; he was able to see only this world, not the world behind this world.

The fool’s eye is only on eye. The traveler’s eyes are only on words, philosophy. Even a fool can defeat a person limited to words.

A fool can make the fool of others also. Deep within himself he knows what he is, a fool; always still wanting to beat around everyone. All the aggression still pent up within. Even if one has obtained the gaadis, titles and everything still one is hankering for beating others.

A wandering monk came and asked for lodging properly challenging them to a debate about the sublime teaching…..

Buddha used to avoid arguments as much as possible by avoiding many philosophical questions. For him meditation was most important. A wondering monk is one who has still not understood or has not much stabilized in the art of meditation. For such a wanderer in the field of spirituality, debates are for boarding and lodging. Just as a person assumes different fancy dresses and hair styles for belly quenching, so too an intellectual fool show cases his skills in debates. These debaters never bring out anything original. They are more like ‘Quotakacharya’, quoting the scriptures to prove their point. They do not show things through their living, aacharan. They have to prove. The real saint does not have to prove because they are continuously showing. What is seen always do not need to be proved, it there is a need to prove that means it is not a living Truth. If there is no need to prove then there is no need for debates. Along with spiritual concepts these debaters hold, they also hold on to social stupidities like debating with only a monk or a Brahmin and not to allow women debaters or students and so and so forth. What to argue with someone who believes women should not study the matter of debates.

These wandering debaters are blind. In the world of blind, one eyed one is the king. This one-eyed one is also blind in matters of real spirituality. Now these blind leaders lead the other blinds. They gather segregation of unlimited people and make a show of their stupidity.

The elder brother, tired that day from much studying, told the younger one to take his place. ‘Go and request the dialogue in silence,’ he cautioned.

If one studies to debate then one would be naturally tired. Though he is not silent; he has understood the importance of silence.

You cannot win against a person who remains silent. This silence has to be the real silence, real mouna. Then that person is invincible.

Debates cannot be held in silence. If the wanderer would have resisted the temptation for debate then in this unusual situation he would have won; because the stupid would not have been able to sit in silence for long.

There are several sports which rely on the opponent making the first aggression, letting them become tired, seeing their strengths and weaknesses and they when they are tired or unaware give them a blow.

Here the wanderer received the blow, but not because the opponent was a smart one. In spite of the opponent being stupid this impatience for debates really defeated the wanderer. His wanderings have made him incapable of sitting silently, of experiencing Zen. Really to sit silently is to be in the temple of Zen.

It was up to the stupid monk to provoke the traveler to debate or else the wanderer would have found his stability in the temple. Silence is not merely absence if words. But the fools would not understand that. How can someone request the debate in silence? Silence silences all debates. If any communication happens in silence then it is not a debate but a dialogue which is what should happen.

The wandering mind got defeated by a dull mind. The wanderer could not see the dullness behind the silence.

The worldly fool always wins; means leads a better life then a debater. So either lead a worldly life or study from wise so that mind can be really silenced and not tired like a two eyed monk.

This wanderer would have read koans like below.

Joshu went to a hermit’s and asked, “What’s up? What’s up?” The hermit lifted up his fist. Joshu said, “The water is too shallow to anchor here,” and went away. Joshu visited the hermit once again a few days later and said, “What’s up? What’s up?” The hermit raised his fist again. Then Joshu said, “Well said” And he bowed to the hermit.

It can be clearly seen that such actions like clenched fists have no standard explanation in Zen. But the wanderer is just a debater.

‘Relate the dialogue to me,’ said the elder one.

One wandering debater’s head is filled with concepts for debates. The one eyed debater is filled with worldly filth. The two-eyed monk is the real seer of this both. It is up to him now to bring harmony here, in his life at least. This two eyed one is representing us. So we are reading this koan through the eyes of this two-eyed one.

It is for us to realize the stupidity of both these and move beyond both these into the realm of third eye – the eye of real wisdom. That is ‘seeing’, darshan, which is what the philosophies of India are known. It’s not a matter of words, so not a matter of thinking; it’s a matter of seeing.

‘Well,’ explained the traveler,’ first I held up one finger, representing Buddha……

To surrender to Buddha-Dharma-Sangha is all part of organized religion. What matters is realization. Because it is out of realization that one understands all these three. When one realizes, then it is ‘awareness’ of the ‘eternal law’ of the ‘creation’. To be aware is to be Buddha, to see the eternal law is to be aware of Dharma and to be aware of this eternal law in whole of creation is the Sangha.

The clenched fist is complete, is real power. One, two or three finger is still at conceptual level. To see them as fingers is to see them as separate. It is see that one of them is possible without the other two. With clenched fist symbol we understand all three are part of one symbol.

There is never any one, two or anything. This understanding comes as a jerk to one in the form of a clenched fist on the face. The one, who braves that, wins. He can never be defeated again. If the traveler would have showed him the clenched fist initially itself then he would have surely got a blow of fist from the stupid. But in that process he would have realized that he was sitting with a silent stupid and not a silent Buddha.

‘Won nothing. I’m going to beat him up.’….

This fool is not satisfied when the traveler left. That is not a victory for him. He feels insulted. The real victory for him would be in beating him up. These fools beat such wandering travelers by not letting them go. Not that they would make them comfortable in the temple of Zen. They would make them followers and that would be beating them!

The wandering knew that the clenched fist meant. But that bookish knowledge did not came to his rescue when he needed it the most. So he had to get the real taste of clenched fist.

‘Tell me the subject of the debate’….

Both are in different world. We believe world is one. There are as many worlds as many people; because people see this world through their glasses. One is seeing the water melon being thrown at him and the other is seeing rotten oranges being thrown at him. Both of them feel being attacked. This is what happens in debates. Both parties feel being attacked. Sometimes they have to be polite and defend. At other times they go for attack. But really this is a battle, not a spiritually enhancing dialogue.

For the wise really the world is one throughout because they see the world as it is.

The two eyed one is trying to see with both sides; seeing both sides of the coin to really come to a proper understanding.

No debate happened. Still there was a decision. And both were dissatisfied with the decision. Both came to wrong conclusions. Both were holding blind beliefs. This is real blindness. The one who saw all this now has to make a decision. We are now in the position of that two-eyed monk. The other two people involved in this story are incapable of understanding. It is only this monk who can understand. It is up to us as to what we understand from this koan.

Both these are monks. From this we can see the quality of monks. They get enraged in small matters even without understanding. Their ego is always inflated, bloated to such an extent that they always feel being punctured. And only the fools let their ego being so much over bloated. They give up their worldly titles and positions and acquire far more subtle, greater egotistical titles.

When debates initially started they were being done by real saints. They did not had fixed viewpoints because they were seers; not holders of intellectual concepts of Truth. The seers have their mind quieted through philosophy. That is the real purpose of philosophy. Which system you follow is less relevant; the more relevant point is its applicability and the person that comes out of such application. So they used to hold debates to understand the others viewpoint and to explain their viewpoints to others. They are not hold to win the debate, they are hold to win the kingdom within. Through their debates they were training the other listeners also. A great deal of anticipation and interest is created through these debates.

Nowadays, the originality has been lost in the debates. These debaters have become the followers and upholders of the traditions. It has become tied up with bread and butter. The older the tradition; the greater the rigidity and greater the need to follow a strict guideline while debating. Originally the saints used to bring alive the debates through their wisdom oozing from life and in the process give life to the listeners. Their eye was not on winning and accolades and so they were able to win the hearts of listeners and even their challengers.

Since he was a stranger I thought I would be polite to him, so I held up two fingers congratulating him that he had two eyes….

People give such respect to strangers only. If it would have been some local known person then he would not have been tolerated; because he shows that people have only one eye; his presence makes people feel their limited vision. This limitedness looks limited only when someone with two eyes come. But their respect and congratulations are also like this shallow. Just because the traveler was stranger he was tolerated but the outward gesture was to congratulate him.

Even though the monk has one eye, he is certain about what he is observing and his interpretations thereof. Fools are always very certain. It is wise who doubts the doubter and not just others. Their doubts lead to clearing of all the doubts. The certainty of fools leads to confirmation of their foolishness.

There is a doubter within us all which doubts everything. You say any negative thing and it is quick to accept it. Say any positive thing then it starts to doubt. The doubter is always busy doubting others in order to avoid doubting itself. If a wise says to a doubter to doubt itself rather than people then in this the doubter will doubt the wise or knowledge or anything; just about anything to avoid doubting itself.

The doubter never lets us see everything in its okay-ness. If someone says to such a doubter that everything is fine then he ask why? Why is everything fine? Has anything died in me? No ambition, no liveliness? As if everything remaining fine is its unacceptable death. And when it finds everything acceptable then it still raises doubts and protects these doubts through argumentation. Doubts and argumentation goes together.

We believe argumentation is for clearing the doubts. No. Just the opposite is true. Doubts are creating the argumentator within. Argumentation never leads to clearing of doubts. And hence doubts become stabilized. This leads to stabilization of the doubter. It is a vicious cycle that is going on. The more certain the argumentator, the more certain are his doubts. In order to avoid the light to fall on itself the doubter is throwing its own darkness on others in the garb of trying to understand others, in the garb of throwing light on others.

but he ran out and that ended it…

You too can see now the futility of debates, monasteries and being with fools. Your house is on fire, run out, to end it.