II

The history of Zen dates with the coming of Bodhi-Dharma

(Bodai-Daruma)[4.19] from the west, 520 A.D. He came to China with a

special message which is summed up in the following lines:

“A special transmission outside the scriptures;

No dependence upon words and letters;

Direct pointing at the soul of man;

Seeing into one’s nature and the attainment of Buddhahood.”

These four lines as describing the principles of Zen teaching as

distinguished from other schools of Buddhism already in existence

in China were formulated later and not by Dharma himself. We cannot

exactly tell who was the real author, as we have no definite

information on this subject. One historian, Tsung-chien,[4.20] who

compiled from the T‘ien-tai point of view a Buddhist history entitled

_The Rightful Lineage of the Śākya Doctrine_ in 1237, ascribes it

to Nansen Fu-gwan[4.21]; probably the formula originated in those

days when Baso (Ma-tsu), Hyakjo (Pai-chang), Obaku (Huang-po), Sekito

(Shih-tou) and Yakusan (Yüeh-shan)[4.22] were flourishing in the “West

of the River” and in the “South of the Lake.” Since then they have been

regarded as characteristically Zen, and it was Dharma that breathed

this spirit into the minds of the Chinese Buddhists. The latter had

more or less been given up, on the one hand, to philosophising, and, on

the other hand, to practising contemplation. They were not acquainted

with the direct method of Zen which was to see straightway into the

truth of Enlightenment and attain Buddhahood without going through so

many stages of preparation prescribed by the scholars.

* * * * *

Our knowledge of the life of Bodhi-Dharma comes from two sources, the

one which the earliest record we have of him is by Tao-hsüan[4.23]

in his _Biographies of the High Priests_ which was compiled early in

the T‘ang dynasty, A.D. 645. The author was the founder of a Vinaya

sect in China and a learned scholar, who however was living before the

movement of the new school to be known as Zen came into maturity

under Hui-nêng, the sixth patriarch, who was nine years old when

Tao-hsüan wrote his _Biographies_. The other source is the _Records of

the Transmission of the Lamp_, A.D. 1004, compiled by Tao-yüan[4.24]

early in the Sung dynasty. This was written by a Zen monk after Zen had

received full recognition as a special branch of Buddhism, and contains

sayings and doings of its masters. The author often refers to some

earlier Zen histories as his authorities which are however lost now

being known by the titles only.

It is quite natural that these two accounts of the life of Bodhi-Dharma

should vary at several points. The first was written when Zen was

not yet fully established as a school, and the second by one of the

Zen masters. In the first, Dharma, the founder of Zen, is treated as

one of the many other Buddhist priests eminent in various fields as

translators, commentators, scholars, Vinaya-followers, masters of

meditation, possessors of miraculous virtues, etc., and Dharma could

not naturally occupy in such a history any very prominent position

distinguishing himself from the other “high priests.” He is described

merely as one of those “masters of meditation” whose conception of

dhyana did not differ from the old traditional one as was practised by

the Hinayana followers. Tao-hsüan did not understand the message of

Dharma in its full signification, though he could read in it something

not quite of the so-called “practice of meditation.” And therefore

it is sometimes argued by scholars that there is not much of Zen in

Tao-hsüan’s account of Dharma worthy of its first Chinese promulgator

and that therefore Dharma could not be so regarded as is claimed by the

followers of the Zen school of Buddhism. But this is not doing justice

to Zen, nor to Tao-hsüan who never thought of writing a Zen history

before Zen came to be known as such. Tao-hsüan could not be a prophetic

historian. While the biographical history of Tao-yüan contains much

that is to be discredited as regards the life of Bodhi-Dharma,

especially as regards that part of his life before he came to China,

we have reason to believe that the greater part of Tao-yüan’s account

of Dharma’s doings after his arrival in China is historical. In

this latter respect, Tao-hsüan must be taken as complementing Tao-yüan.

It is not quite in accord with the spirit of fair critical judgment to

be partial to one authority at the expense of the other without duly

weighing all the historically known circumstances that contributed to

the making of these histories.

According to Tao-hsüan, Bodhi-Dharma left many writings or sayings

which were apparently still in circulation at the time of the author

of the _Biographies of the High Priests_, but the only authentic

writing of the Zen founder’s at present in our possession is a very

short one which is preserved in Tao-hsüan’s _Biographies_ as well

as in Tao-yüan’s Records. There are some other essays ascribed to

Dharma,[f80] but most of which, though deeply imbibing the spirit

of Zen, are spurious except one which I am inclined to think to be

genuinely his. It is entitled “On the Pacification of the Soul.”[4.26]

Together with the first one which is generally known under the title,

“Meditation on Four Acts,”[4.27] we have just two pieces of writings

handed down as Dharma’s. Though I do not think that “The Meditation

on Four Acts” could be the best possible specimen of writing to be

bequeathed by the founder of Zen, which will admit us straightway into

the very essence of Zen, I will give here an English translation of it

as the most reliable essay of Bodhi-Dharma, the first patriarch of Zen

in China.

There are two versions as I said before of this writing, the one in the

_Biographies_ and the other in the _Records_, and they do not quite

agree with each other in some points. The main drift is the same, but

in detail they vary. The question now is, which is the more original

one? Chronologically, the _Biographies_ were compiled earlier than

the _Records_, but the latter presupposes some earlier writings which

were utilised for its compilation. We have no means to ascertain the

reliability of the documents thus made use of, and then the authority

of the _Biographies_ is not absolute. Therefore, the only profitable

method of judging the respective merit of the two versions is to

compare them from the literary point of view and see what light such

comparison will shed on the nature of each. The result I have reached

is that the author of the _Biographies_ used the one preserved in the

_Records_, which is more faithful to the original if there were any

such besides this very version. The reason for this conclusion is that

Dharma’s writing appears much improved after the editing of Tao-hsüan,

the author of the _Biographies_; for he had to edit it for his own

purposes. Thus edited,[f81][4.28] Dharma’s writing is now in a better

style, that is, more concise, more to the point, and more refined. For

this reason the following translation[4.29] is made from Tao-yüan’s

_Records_ in which the author had every reason to reproduce the

original as it stood.

“[Bodhi-Dharma], the Teacher of the Law, was the third son of a great

Brahman king in South India, of the Western Lands. He was a man

of wonderful intelligence, bright and far-reaching; he thoroughly

understood everything that he ever learned. As his ambition was to

master the doctrine of the Mahayana, he abandoned the white dress of a

layman and put on the black robe of monkhood, wishing to cultivate the

seeds of holiness. He practised contemplation and tranquillisation, he

knew well what was the true significance of worldly affairs. Inside and

outside, he was transpicuous; his virtues were more than a model to

the world. He was grieved very much over the decline of the orthodox

teaching of the Buddha in the remoter parts of the earth. He finally

made up his mind to cross over land and sea and come to China and

preach his doctrine in the kingdom of Wei. Those that were spiritually

inclined gathered about him full of devotion, while those that could

not rise above their own one-sided views talked about him slanderingly.

“At the time there were only two monks called Tao-yih and Hui-k‘ê,

who while yet young had a strong will and desire to learn higher

things. Thinking it a great opportunity of their lives to have such a

teacher of the Law in their own land, they put themselves under his

instruction for several years. Most reverently they followed

him, asked questions to be enlightened, and observed his directions

well. The Teacher of the Law was moved by their spirit of sincerity

and disciplined them in the true path, telling them, ‘This is the

way to obtain peace of mind,’ and ‘This is the way to behave in the

world,’ ‘This is the way to live harmoniously with your surroundings,’

and ‘This is the upāya (means).’ These being the Mahayana ways to

keep the mind tranquil, one has to be on guard against their wrongful

applications. By this mental pacification _Pi-kuan_[f82] is meant;

by this behaviour, the Four Acts; by this harmony with things, the

protection from slander and ill-disposition; and by this Upāya,

detachment.

“Thus I[f83] have briefly stated the story of what follows.

“There are many ways to enter the Path, but briefly speaking they

are of two sorts only. The one is ‘Entrance by Reason’ and the other

‘Entrance by Conduct.’ By ‘Entrance by Reason’ we mean the realisation

of the spirit of Buddhism by the aid of the scriptural teaching. We

then come to have a deep faith in the True Nature which is one and the

same in all sentient beings. The reason why it does not manifest itself

is due to the overwrapping of external objects and false thoughts. When

one, abandoning the false and embracing the true, and in simpleness

of thought abides in _Pi-kuan_ 壁觀, one finds that there is neither

selfhood nor otherness, that the masses and the worthies are of one

essence, and firmly holds on to this belief and never moves away

therefrom. He will not then be guided by any literary instructions,

for he is in silent communion with the principle itself, free from

conceptual discrimination, for he is serene and not-acting. This

is called ‘Entrance by Reason.’

“By ‘Entrance by Conduct’ is meant the Four Acts in which all other

acts are included. What are the four? 1. How to requite hatred; 2. To

be obedient to karma; 3. Not to seek after anything; and 4. To be in

accord with the Dharma.

“1. What is meant by ‘How to requite hatred’? Those who discipline

themselves in the Path should think thus when they have to struggle

with adverse conditions: During the innumerable past ages I have

wandered through multiplicity of existences, all the while giving

myself to unimportant details of life at the expense of essentials, and

thus creating infinite occasions for hate, ill-will, and wrong-doing.

While no violations have been committed in this life, the fruits of

evil deeds in the past are to be gathered now. Neither gods nor men

can foretell what is coming upon me. I will submit myself willingly

and patiently to all the ills that befall me, and I will never bemoan

or complain. In the Sutra it is said not to worry over ills that may

happen to you. Why? Because through intelligence one can survey [the

whole chain of causation]. When this thought arises, one is in concord

with the principle because he makes the best use of hatred and turns it

into the service in his advance towards the Path. This is called the

‘way to requite hatred.’

“2. By ‘being obedient to karma’ is meant this: There is no self

(_ātman_) in whatever beings that are produced by the interplay of

karmaic conditions; pain and pleasure we suffer are also the results of

our previous action. If I am rewarded with fortune, honour, etc., this

is the outcome of my past deeds which by reason of causation affect

my present life. When the force of karma is exhausted, the result I

am enjoying now will disappear; what is then the use of being joyful

over it? Gain or loss, let us accept karma as it brings us the one or

the other, the spirit itself knows neither increase nor decrease. The

wind of gladness does not move it as it is silently in harmony with the

Path. Therefore this is called ‘being obedient to karma.’

“3. By ‘not seeking after anything’ is meant this: Men of the

world, in eternal confusion, are attached everywhere to one thing or

another, which is called seeking. The wise however understand the

truth and are not like the vulgar. Their minds abide serenely in the

uncreated while the body turns about in accordance with the laws of

causation. All things are empty and there is nothing desirable and

to be sought after. Wherever there is the merit of brightness there

follows the demerit of darkness. This triple world where one stays

too long is like a house on fire; all that has a body suffers, and

who would ever know what is rest? Because the wise are thoroughly

acquainted with this truth, they get never attached to anything that

becomes, their thoughts are quieted, they never seek. Says the Sutra:

Wherever there is seeking, there you have sufferings; when seeking

ceases, you are blessed. Thus we know that not to seek is verily

the way to the truth. Therefore I preach to you not ‘to seek after

anything.’

“4. By ‘being in accord with the Dharma’ is meant that the reason in

its essence is pure which we call the Dharma, and that this reason is

the principle of emptiness in all that is manifested, as it is above

defilements and attachments, and as there is no Self or Other in it.

Says the Sutra: In the Dharma there are no sentient beings, because

it is free from the stains of being; in the Dharma there is no Self

because it is free from the stain of selfhood. When the wise understand

this truth and believe in it, their conduct will be ‘in accordance with

the Dharma.’

“As the Dharma in essence has no desire to possess, the wise are ever

ready to practise charity with their body, life, property, and they

never begrudge, they never know what an ill grace means. As they have

a perfect understanding of the threefold nature of emptiness, they are

above partiality and attachment. Only because of their will to cleanse

all beings of their stains, they come among them as of them, but they

are not attached to the form. This is known as the inner aspect of

their life. They however know also how to benefit others, and again how

to glorify the path of enlightenment. As with the virtue of charity,

so with the other five virtues [in the Prajñāpāramitā]. That the

wise practise the six virtues of perfection is to get rid of confused

thoughts, and yet they are not conscious of their doings. This is

called ‘being in accord with the Dharma.’”

* * * * *

The doctrine of the Two Entrances is evidently taken from the

_Vajrasamādhi-sūtra_[f84]; and that of the Four Acts is an

amplification of the second form of Entrance as is expounded in the

Sutra. A comparison with the passage[4.29a] from it will make this

point clear at once:

“Said the Buddha: The two entrances are ‘Entrance by Reason’ and

‘Entrance by Conduct.’ ‘Entrance by Reason’ means to have a deep faith

in that all sentient beings are identical in essence with the true

nature which is neither unity nor multiplicity; only it is beclouded

by external objects. The nature in itself neither departs nor comes.

When a man in singleness of thought abides in _chüeh-kuan_ 覺觀, he will

clearly see into the Buddha-nature, of which we cannot say whether

it exists or exists not, and in which there is neither selfhood nor

otherness. He will also find that the nature is the same both in

the masses and in the worthies. He thus firmly holds the ground of

the diamond-heart and never moves away therefrom; he is serene and

not-doing, and free from conceptual discrimination. This is called

‘Entrance by Reason.’

“‘Entrance by Conduct’ means not to be unsteady and reclining in mind

and not to be in its shadows changing like a stream. Wherever you

are, let your thought be serene and not to be seeking after anything.

Let it be like unto the great earth unmoved even in a raging storm.

Giving up all thoughts of egoism in your heart, save all beings and

let them cross over to the other shore. There are no births, no signs,

no clinging, no abandoning; in the mind of a Bodhisattva, there is no

going-out, no coming-in. When this mind which neither goes out nor

comes in enters into that which is never entered into, it is called

entering. This is the way the Bodhisattva enters into the Dharma. The

Dharma is not empty in form, and the Dharma of non-emptiness

is not to be put aside as non-entity. Why? The Dharma that is not

non-entity is filled with virtues. It is neither mind nor shadows, it

is pure in its suchness.”

In comparing these two texts the reader will be impressed with the

most important and most striking change Bodhi-Dharma made in his

quotation, which is the substituting of _pi-kuan_ for _chüeh-kuan_.

_Pi_ ordinarily means “wall” or “precipice,” and is often found in

combination with _li_, “standing,” in such phrases as _pi li wan jên_

壁立萬仞, to describe an unscalable wall, or figuratively to represent

the attitude, for instance, of Acala-Vidyārāja standing straight up.

What was the reason of Dharma’s changing _chüeh_, “to awaken,” or “to

be enlightened” into a word which apparently has no organic relation

to the following _kuan_, “to perceive,” or “to contemplate”? The

novel combination is a very important one, for it alters the sense of

the whole context in which it occurs. Tao-hsüan, the author of the

_Biographies_, refers to Dharma’s _tai ch‘êng pi kuan_, Mahayanistic

wall-contemplation, in his commentary notes to Zen, as the most

meritorious work Dharma achieved in China.[f85] For this reason he is

often spoken of as the _pi-kuan_ Brahman, that is, wall-contemplating

Brahman, and in Japan the monks belonging to the Soto school of Zen

are supposed to follow the example of the founder of their religion

when they keep up the practice of sitting facing the wall while

meditating. But this is evidently a superficial interpretation of the

phrase _pi-kuan_; for how could mere wall-gazing start a revolutionary

movement in the Buddhist world as is implied in Tao-hsüan’s life of

Dharma?[f86] How could such an innocent practise provoke a terrible

opposition among scholars of those days? To my view, _pi-kuan_ has

a far deeper meaning, and must be understood in the light of the

following passage in the _Records_, which is quoted from a work

known as the _Pieh Chi_[4.30] meaning some special document of prior

existence:

“The master first stayed in the Shōrinji (Shao-lin-szŭ) monastery for

nine years, and when he taught the second patriarch, it was only in the

following way: ‘Externally keep yourself away from all relationships,

and, internally, have no pantings (or hankerings, 喘 _ch‘uan_) in your

heart;[f87] when your mind is like unto a straight-standing wall you

may enter into the Path.’ Hui-k‘ê tried variously to explain [or to

discourse on] the reason of mind, but failed to realise the truth

itself. The master simply said, ‘No! No!’ and never proposed to explain

to his disciple what was the mind-essence in its thought-less state,

[that is, in its pure being]. [Later] said Hui-k‘ê, ‘I know now how

to keep myself away from all relationships.’ ‘You make it a total

annihilation, do you not?’ queried the master. ‘No, master,’ replied

Hui-k‘ê, ‘I do not make it a total annihilation.’ ‘How do you testify

your statement?’ ‘For I know it always in a most intelligible manner,

but to express it in words—that is impossible.’ Thereupon, said the

master, ‘That is the mind-essence itself transmitted by all the

Buddhas. Harbour no doubts about it.’”

In fact, this passage sums up the special message contained in

Dharma’s teaching, and in it we may get an adequate answer as to the

exact meaning of _pi-kuan_. The term must have been a novel one in

his day, and the originality of his views really lay in the creative

sense of the one word “_pi_” It was so concrete, so graphic, and

there was nothing abstract and conceptual about it. Hence Tao-hsüan’s

special reference to Dharma’s teaching as the _Tai-chêng pi-kuan_.

(Mahayanistic wall-contemplation). While there was nothing

specifically Zen in his doctrine of “Two Entrances and Four Acts,” the

teaching of _Pi-kuan_, wall-contemplation, was what made Bodhi-Dharma

the first patriarch of Zen Buddhism in China.

The author of the _Rightful Transmission of the Śākya Doctrine_

interprets _pi-kwan_ as meaning the state of mind where “no external

dusts get in.”[4.31] This may be all right, but we are not told

where he finds the authority for this way of understanding. Had

he in mind Dharma’s remark to Hui-k‘ê as recorded in the document

known as _Pieh-chi_? In any event the underlying meaning of the

“wall-contemplation” must be found in the subjective condition of a Zen

master, which is highly concentrated and rigidly exclusive of all ideas

and sensuous images. To understand the phrase, “_pi-kwan_” as simply

meaning “wall-gazing” will be sheer absurdity. If the specific message

of Dharma as the founder of Zen in China is to be sought anywhere in

the writings of his, which are still in existence, it must be in this

“Mahayanistic wall-contemplation.”

Besides this writing which is the only one left by Dharma in

our possession at present, we have the _Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra_,

_Vajrasamādhi-sūtra_, and _Vajracchedikā-sūtra_, through which we can

also have a glimpse into the central teaching of Bodhi-Dharma. Zen,

unlike other schools of Buddhism, has no particular Sutras to be called

the “foundation canon” on which its followers would base the principal

tenets of their school; but Dharma recommended the _Laṅkāvatāra_ to

his first disciple Hui-k‘ê (Yeka), as containing the teaching most

intimately related to Zen, and after him this scriptural writing came

to be studied chiefly by Zen scholars.[f88] As to the importance of

the _Vajrasamādhi_ as expounding the philosophy of Zen, we can easily

understand it from Dharma’s own reference to the Sutra in his writing

as was already pointed out. With regard to the _Vajracchedikā-sūtra_,

most people think of it as having nothing to do with Zen prior to the

fifth patriarch, Hung-jên (Gunin); for it was he who for the first

time introduced it among his own disciples, while Dharma himself

made no allusion whatever to this, one of the most popular

Buddhist texts in China. But according to Hui-nêng’s Preface to the

_Vajracchedikā_, which is still preserved, “ever since the coming-west

of Dharma he wanted to propagate the meaning of this Sutra and lead

people to understand the Reason and to see into the Nature.” If this

were actually the case, Dharma, to say the least, must have had some

knowledge of this Sutra from the very beginning of his career in China,

and the connection in a way between this and Zen must have been more

fundamental than that between the _Laṅkāvatāra_ and Zen. The prevalent

notion then that the _Vajracchedikā_ came only in vogue after Hung-jên

and Hui-nêng must be revised. Whatever this may be, the _Laṅkāvatāra_

is too difficult a material for popular consumption, and it was natural

that this Sutra came to be gradually superseded by the _Vajracchedikā_

as Zen gained more and more in power and influence. As one of the

Sutras belonging to the Prajñāpāramitā class of Buddhist literature,

the teaching of the _Vajracchedikā_ was comparatively simple and had

something much akin to the Laotzŭan ideas of emptiness and non-doing.

It was not hard for the average Chinese to follow its philosophy of

Śūnyatā, in fact this agreed well with a certain aspect of Chinese

thought.[f89]

However, with Zen followers all literature was like a finger pointing

at the moon, and there was not much in itself that will actually lead

one to the seeing of one’s own inner nature; for this seeing was a

realisation which must be attained by one’s own personal efforts apart

from the mere understanding of letters. All Buddhist Sutras including

the _Laṅkāvatāra_, _Vajrasamādhi_, and _Vajracchedikā_ could not

be of much help to the real earnest seekers of the truth, so long as

his idea is to grasp the naked facts with his own ungloved hands. This

was possible only when his own inner consciousness opened by itself,

from within, through his whole-souled efforts. Literature is helpful

only when it indicates the way, it is not the thing itself.

The earlier part of Bodhi-Dharma’s life while in India as is narrated

in the _Records_ may be discredited as containing a large dose of

fiction, but the latter part of it cannot so easily be disposed of.

This is where it supplements the story in Tao-hsüan’s _Biographies_,

which was written by a good historian but by one who did not know

anything about the future development of Zen. According to the

_Records_ then, the first great personage Dharma had an interview with

when he came to China was the king of Liang, the greatest Buddhist

patron of the time. And the interview took place in the following

manner:

The Emperor Wu of Liang asked Dharma:

“Ever since the beginning of my reign I have built so many temples,

copied so many sacred books, and supported so many monks; what do you

think my merit might be?”

“No merit whatever, sire!” Dharma bluntly replied.

“Why?” demanded the Emperor astonished.

“All these are inferior deeds,” thus began Dharma’s significant reply,

“which would cause their author to be born in the heavens or on this

earth again. They still show the traces of worldliness, they are like

shadows following objects. Though they appear actually existing, they

are no more than mere non-entities. As to a true meritorious deed, it

is full of pure wisdom and is perfect and mysterious, and its real

nature is beyond the grasp of human intelligence. Such as this is not

to be sought after by any worldly achievement.”

The Emperor Wu thereupon asked Bodhi-Dharma again,[4.32] “What is the

first principle of the holy doctrine?”

“Vast emptiness, and there is nothing in it to be called holy, sire!”

answered Dharma.

“Who is then that is now confronting me?”

“I know not, sire!”

The answer was simple enough, and clear enough too, but the pious

and learned Buddhist Emperor failed to grasp the spirit pervading the

whole attitude of Dharma.

Seeing that there was no further help to be given to the Emperor,

Dharma left his dominion and retired into a monastery in the state of

Wei, where he sat quietly practising the “wall-contemplation,” it is

said, for nine long years, until he came to be known as the _Pi-kuan_

Brahman.[f90]

One day a monk Shên-kuang[4.33] visited him and most earnestly

implored him to be enlightened in the truth of Zen, but Dharma paid

no attention. Shên-kuang was not to be disappointed, for he knew that

all the great spiritual leaders of the past had gone through with many

a heart-rending trial in order to attain the final object of their

aspiration. One evening he stood in the midst of the snow waiting for

Dharma to notice him when at last the fast-falling snow buried him

almost as deep as his knees.

Finally, the master turned back and said, “What do you wish me to

do for you?” Said Kuang, “I am come to receive your invaluable

instructions; pray open your gate of mercy, and extend your hand of

salvation to this poor suffering mortal.” “The incomparable doctrine of

Buddhism,” replied Dharma, “can be comprehended only after a long hard

discipline and by enduring what is most difficult to endure, and by

practising what is most difficult to practise. Men of inferior virtue

and wisdom are not allowed to understand anything about it. All the

labours of such ones will come to naught.”

Kuang at last cut off his left arm with the sword[f91] he was carrying,

and presented it before the teacher as a token of his sincerity in

the desire to be instructed in the doctrine of all the Buddhas. Said

Dharma, “This is not to be sought through another.”

“My soul is not yet pacified. Pray, master, pacify it.”

“Bring your soul here, and I will have it pacified.”

Kuang hesitated for a moment but finally said, “I have sought it

these many years and am still unable to get hold of it!”

“There! it is pacified once for all.” This was Dharma’s sentence.[f92]

Dharma then told him to change his name into Hui-k‘ê.

Nine years passed,[4.34] and Dharma wished to return to his native

country. He called in all his disciples before him, and said, “The time

is come for me to depart, and I want to see what your attainments are.”

“According to my view,” said Tao-fu, “the truth is above both

affirmation and negation, for this is the way it moveth.”

Dharma said, “You have got my skin.”

Next came in the nun, Tsung-ch‘ih, and said, “As I understand it, it is

like Ānanda’s viewing the Buddha-land of Akshobhya: it is seen once and

never again.”

Dharma said, “You have got my flesh.”

Tao-yü was another disciple who presented his view, saying, “Empty are

the four elements and non-existent the five skandhas. According to my

view, there is not a thing to be grasped as real.”

Dharma said, “You have got my bone.”

Finally, Hui-k‘ê, that is, Shên-kuang, reverently bowing to the master,

kept standing in his seat and said nothing.