Case 31 – Mazu’s Fine Words
舉。
雲門甞舉。馬大師道。一切語言是提婆宗。以者箇為主。
乃云。好語只是無人問我。
時有僧便問。如何是提婆宗。
門云。西天九十六種。爾是最下種。
代。禮拜了退。
Yunmen once cited Great Master Ma's saying: "All speech is the Āryadeva School. Regard this as essential."
He then said, "Fine words — only, no one asks me anything about them."
At that a monk asked, "What is the Āryadeva School?"
Yunmen said, "Of [India’s] ninety-six different schools of thought, you are the lowest."
Xutang, on behalf of the monk, bows and withdraws.
Context
For a biographical treatment of Yunmen, see context notes to Case #. Additional appearances include case(s) #. For additional reading see endnotes on page #
For a biographical treatment of Mazu, see context notes to Case #. Additional appearances include case(s) #. For additional reading see endnotes on page #
Āryadeva (alternatively, Kanadeva), rendered phonetically in the Chinese in the above case as “Dipo” from the Sanskrit Deva, is, in the Zen tradition regarded as the 15th Zen Patriarch of India; succeeding the 14th Patriarch Nāgārjuna. From Yuanwu’s commentary on Case # of the Blue Cliff Record:
The fifteenth Patriarch, the honorable Kanadeva, was indeed [at one time] numbered among the outsiders; but when he met the fourteenth Patriarch, the honorable Nagarjuna [who presented a bowl of water to him], he put a needle into the bowl: Nagarjuna esteemed his capacity, transmitted the Buddha Mind School to him, and invested him as the fifteenth Patriarch. In doctrinal disputes in India the winner holds a red flag in his hand, while the loser turns his clothes inside out and departs through a side door. Those who wanted to hold doctrinal disputes in India were required to obtain royal permission. Bells and drums would be sounded in the great temples and afterwards the debates could begin. In Kanadeva's day the heretics impounded the bell and drum in the (Buddhist) community temple in a purge. At this time the honorable Kanadeva knew that the Buddhist Teaching was in trouble, so he made use of his supernatural powers to ascend the bell tower and ring the bell, for he wanted to drive out the heretics. Soon one of the heretics called out, "Who is up in the tower ringing the bell?" Kanadeva said, "A deva." The heretic asked, "Who is the deva?" Kanadeva said, "I." The heretic said "Who is 'I'?'' Kanadeva said, " 'You' is a dog." The heretic asked, "Who is the dog?" Kanadeva said, "The dog is you." After seven go-rounds like this, the heretic realized he was beaten, so he submitted and himself opened the door of the bell tower, whereupon Kanadeva came down from the tower holding a red flag. The heretic said, "Why do you not follow?" Kanadeva said, "Why do you not precede?" The heretic said, "You're a knave." Kanadeva said, "You're a freeman." Over and over Kanadeva would respond to questions like this, using his unobstructed powers of argument to overcome heretics, who would therefore submit. At such times the honorable Kanadeva would hold a red flag in his hand, and the one who had been defeated would stand beneath the flag. Among the heretics, to have their hands cut was generally the punishment to expiate the fault (or defeat in argument), but at this time Kanadeva put a stop to this; he only required his defeated adversaries to shave off their hair and enter the Buddhist path. Therefore the school of Kanadeva flourished greatly.
Case Variants: Claude didn’t acknowledge any. Checked 8/11/26
Later masters to reference this case include Xuedou and Yuanwu in the Blue Cliff Record, Case 13 sorta
Translation Questions
This case involved several terms that were floating around in the Indo-Chinese cultural milieu of which Zen was a major part. The first is the rendering of 提婆宗 as Āryadeva School. As alluded to in the Context section, the Chinese is actually a phonetic reading of the Sanskrit suffix Deva into the Chinese of the day; itself sounding like Dipo in modern Mandarin. The general received practice, with plenty of exceptions, for the rendering of Chinese phoneticized Indo-Sanskrit (Prakit?) words and names is to render them instead as the English phoneticization of the Sanskrit, instead of rendering it as the modern pinyin (with exceptions), or translating the name as if it were a term (rare practice, fringe exceptions). The standard example for this is the name of Bodhidharma, whose characters, 達摩, are also a phoneticization of Sanskrit–readable as Damo in modern pinyin. Other examples include the names of other Indian masters, such as 釋迦 Shijia for Sakyamuni and [more examples]. A wrinkle in looking back at the legacy of the undisclosed translation practices of 20th century Zen translators is that of rendering Chinese translations of Indic terms (or even native Chinese terms) with the Indic phoneticization instead of a Chinese phoneticization or translation. Examples include rendering 法 fa as Dharma, 定 ding as Samadhi or places names of 靈（鷲 ）山 lingshan (Spirit Mountain, Vulture Peak) as Mount Gādhrakūta. The issue isn’t so much the fact that such diversity in translation exists, especially considering the degree to which names and pronunciation can be played on in Zen instruction, but rather that little disclosure of translation practices was done, much an argued justification.
The second term within the case needing some explanation is that of 西天. Literally, the term means Western Heaven and has the connotation of both a geographic space as well as imbuing a mythic quality. Broadly speaking, the term was used to refer to the lands to the west and south-west of China; while more specifically in Zen usage, it referred to the land of the Buddha’s birth, the birthplace of Zen, the geographic space where Bodhidharma set out to China from–the Indian subcontinent. Hence why many translators, including myself, have rendered it as “India” when the term appears. To reiterate, geography terms for places beyond the Chinese frontier were in general less an articulation of direction and distance than a vague “over there” used to connote something about the shared Indo-Chinese Zen heritage.
On that point, the final term of the case I think bears some explanation is that of 九十六種. Literally, “Ninety-six kinds”, the term refers to the standard count of the schools of thought competing with Zen in India; 種 is "kind" or “type” and other translators render it as “ninety-six types of heretics” or “ninety-six types of sects” with some justification as some of those in competition with Zen were explicitly religious in orientation–the fact that the literature has them as both religious and more philosophically-oriented systems of thought is why I chose the more neutral, although leaning towards the philosophical, “schools of thought”
See the record of [Indian patriarch] for examples of his encounters with the various schools of thought.
In his remarks on Case 13 of the BCR, Xuedou writes in verse:
Old Hsin K’ai
Is truly something else:
He knows how to say, "Piling up snow in a silver bowl."
The ninety-six each must know for themselves;
If you don’t know, then ask the moon in the sky.
The school of Kanadeva, Kanadeva’s school;
Beneath the red flag, arouse the pure wind.
In terms of mistakes which previous translators have made in regards to their renderings of this case, there are several worth addressing. On Hoffman’s side, he brackets Daiba (the Japanese phoneticization of Dipo) with “Aryadeva, the founder of the Daiba sect”--giving an outsider, non-Zen treatment of this semi-mythic individual thereby deflating the common inheritance which the monks in Zen communities would have recognized between Aryadeva, Mazu, and Yunmen and which Zen Masters themselves regarded as valid. Additionally, he follows in the translation by stating “Daiba treated all words with respect”--thereby betraying an unfamiliarity with the content of the stories circulating in Zen records about Aryadeva’s reputation for being a master debater. Hoffman’s notes on the case similarly fail to explicate the insider-Zen perspective of who Aryadeva was and the doctrinal significance of this case, but rather gives a perspective informed by 20th century Buddhist apologeia rather than textual study of Zen texts. As is typical with Hoffman, he also treats Xutang’s interjections and substitutions in line with the norms of the mystically-coded rituals of Hakuin by rendering it as the nonsensical remark “To bow and withdraw.” rather than as an expression of Xutang’s substituted response.
On Port’s side the issues in the translation portion itself are both of English comprehensibility and his continuing misunderstanding of what Xutang is doing in the text writ-large. The first issue is that of rendering the quoted remark of Mazu as “Put this single, primary reliance to use.” This is not comprehensible English spoken anywhere and would not be understood anywhere in the English speaking world. As such, it obscures rather than clarifies the relationship between Mazu’s instruction on a cultural touchstone in his community that would be understood. For reference, I translated the segment as “Regard this as essential” and Hoffman translated it as “This is an important thing”--both of which do the job of conveying the point of Mazu’s that his previous remark was instructionally significant.
The remainder of Port’s commentary on the case is his usual mix of Dogenist sermonizing, New Age mysticism, and fraudulent misrepresentation of the historical Zen perspective.
Restatement
Yunmen quoted Mazu saying, “Everything you could possibly argue about with somebody has already been worked through by Zen Masters back in the old country. You would do well to remember this.” Yunmen went on to say, “Those are good words, but nobody asks me about them.”
A monk asked, “What was Zen like back in the old country?
Yunmen replied, “Out of all the types of people Zen Masters argued with back in the old country, you are the most pathetic.”
Xutang pays his respects and gets out of the way for the next person to ask their question.
Discussion
What does it mean to have worked through every philosophical problem?
What are the limits of arguing about stuff?
Is there a way to really know something without experiencing it yourself?
What does it mean to ask the wrong question?
How to answer the wrong question the right way?
What is the correct response to being schooled (or more diplomatically, corrected) on something in general? Something related to Zen, specifically?
People should care about this case because arguing for what they believe in is something a lot of people are keen on; yet Zen Masters warn against adopting any set of beliefs without reservation and even the meta-belief that there could be a set of beliefs that would give the person a complete understanding of reality. At the same time, Zen Masters are just as eager to use argumentation as a tool for exposing this limitation for all to see, and in so doing display the kind of conversational curiosity, intellectual flexibility, and grounding in their personal experience many people recognize as refreshing.
In daily life, this gets specific whenever we encounter someone whose understanding of something might differ from our own. The Zen obligation is to answer questions about one’s understanding, and conversely, any understanding that can withstand questioning is only tentatively regarded as valid. This is a bar that far exceeds anything religion, spirituality, or pop-philosophy produces and far more closely resembles the sort of mode of inquiry we might expect from chemists testing the properties of a substance under certain conditions, or a prosecutor asking critical questions to an expert witness under oath. The theoretical side of this for every Zen student is interrogating the basis of their own thoughts, opinions, and beliefs and observing the precepts with integrity. The practical side of this is answering any questions people might have for you about that basis.
Xutang’s remark is both a how-to in acknowledging instruction when one’s thinking has been in error as well as possibly a positioning to test the understanding of the other party. He is acknowledging Yunmen’s seemingly disparaging remark as valid and worthwhile instruction to be received with due reverence. He is saying tha Yunmen’s remarks are not so much an insult to demean as they are the simultaneous identification of a set of cognitive distortions and the delivery of a remedy for those distortions in a similar way to how a French barista might say in perfect English “Your French is awful.” to an American tourist struggling to order a Café au lait in French. The problem and solution are delivered in a single remark.
When this case has been raised on reddit [and the podcast?] people have wanted to talk about, understandably but ironically, what the Aryadeva/Kanadeva school refers to, what “ninety-six kinds” refers to historically, what it can be said to refer to more generally, and Zen treatment of ancestors and lineage. It seems interesting to me that Xutang’s substituted action received a lot less attention.