Here is a story (koan) from "Zen's Chinese Heritage: The Masters and Their Teachings Expanded Edition,” translated by Andy Ferguson (pp. 90-91):
_____
Every day when Zen master Baizhang spoke in the hall, there was an old man who would attend along with the assembly. One day when the congregation had departed, the old man remained.
Baizhang asked him, "Who are you?"
The old man said, "I'm not a person. Formerly, during the age of Kasyapa Buddha, I was the abbot of a monastery on this mountain. At that time a student asked me, 'Does a great adept fall into cause and effect or not?' I answered, saying, 'A great adept does not fall into cause and effect.' Thereafter, for five hundred lifetimes I've been reborn in the body of a fox. Now I ask that the master say a turning phrase in my behalf, so that I can shed the fox's body."
Baizhang said, "Ask the question."
The old man said, "Does a great adept fall into cause and effect or not?"
Baizhang said, "A great adept is not blind to cause and effect."
Upon hearing these words, the old man experienced unsurpassed enlightenment. He then said, "Now I have shed the body of a fox. I lived behind the mountain. Please provide funeral services for a monk who has died."
Baizhang then instructed the temple director to tell the monks to assemble after the next meal for funeral services. The monks were all mystified by this because there was no one who was ill in the temple infirmary, so how could this be? After the meal, Baizhang instructed the monks to assemble beneath a grotto behind the mountain. He then brought out the body of a dead fox on his staff and proceeded to cremate it according to established ritual. That evening Baizhang entered the hall to speak and brought up for discussion what had transpired.
Huangbo asked, "When this ancient spoke a single phrase incorrectly, he fell into rebirth for five hundred lifetimes in the body of a fox. Originally, had he answered correctly, what would have happened?"
Baizhang said, "Come here and I'll tell you."
Huangbo came forward and then hit Baizhang.
Baizhang laughed and clapped his hands saying, "It's been said that the barbarian's beard is red. But here's yet another red-bearded barbarian!"
_________________________
This is case 2 of the Gateless Gate, a koan collection of 48 koans that was compiled and finished in 1228. I am not sure when it was brought to Japan. The compiler wrote the following comment and poem. Here is my adaptation of Katsuki Sekida's translation of these from his book "Two Zen Classics: The Gateless Gate and the Blue Cliff Records" (pp. 31-32).
Comment: Not falling under causation: how could this make the monk a fox? Not blind to causation: how could this make the old man emancipated? If you come to understand this, you will realize how old Baizhang would have enjoyed five hundred rebirths as a fox.
Poem:
Not falling, not blind:
Two faces of one die.
Not blind, not falling:
A thousand errors, a million mistakes.
________________
I have gotten the impression that many have the impression that chanting Namu Myoho Renge Kyo somehow either circumvents the usual workings of the law of cause and effect and/or is such a good cause that it overrides or is supposed to instantly change all our negative karma. I think this is a very naive and non-Buddhist understanding of what the Odaimoku is and how causation actually works. It is the error of thinking that because we chant Odaimoku we will "not fall into cause and effect." Nowhere, however, does Nichiren ever make the claim that those who chant Odaimoku or that those who uphold the Lotus Sutra in the face of persecution will no longer be subject to cause and effect. He does say that we will no longer fall into the three lower realms, and he does say that our karma will be mitigated or lessened, but nowhere (even in his own case) does he say that past causes will be thwarted or completely erased. In fact, he mentions such teachings as: "If you want to know what you did in the past, look at what is happening to you now. If you want to know what will happen to you in the future, look at what you are doing now."
Another thing about this is that it is the goal of arhats and pratyekabuddhas (the two vehicles) to completely escape the six lower realms of transmigration which are subject to the law of cause and effect. This, of course, is not the goal of bodhisattvas or the final goal of the One Vehicle. So, this is also a problem if supposedly Mahayana teachers (and Zen is supposed to be a Mahayana school) are teaching that should seek to not fall into cause and effect. This would mean they are teaching the hinayana and not the Mahayana.
The activity of buddhas and very advanced bodhisattvas may not be bound by cause and effect because they no longer make unwholesome causes and even the wholesome things that they do are not motivated by any self-seeking for rewards or recognition. Like the actions of arhats and pratyekabuddhas according to Abhidharma, their actions no longer count as karmic causes but are that part of causality which is the activity of Dharma and not moral causation. Remember that there are five kinds of causation: insentient, biological, non-volitional mental, volitional actions (karma), and Dharmic activity. Buddhas and advanced bodhisattvas are not blind to causation, however, and are able to work with and through it to liberate sentient beings who are still entangled by karmic self-serving patterns of thoughts, words, and deeds.
Another problem here is the limits of speech. Does "not falling into cause and effect" mean not subject to the lower realms or does it mean no longer stumbling in confusion and compulsion? Doesn't "not being blind to cause and effect" mean that one will not fall into cause and effect? Do these statements really contradict one another? And if not, aren't they both correct? Or perhaps, aren't they both mistaken? Did the former abbot turn into a fox for five hundred lifetimes because he gave a wrong answer? Or was it because he gave an adequate or even correct answer in the wrong way? Was he clinging one-sidedly to only a certain perspective? If he did, then it was no longer an answer that could serve as a skillful means but an answer that had become a fetter, a trap. Did Baizhang make the same mistake from a different angle, or did he escape that trap?
For that matter, if the former abbot turned fox had given the right answer in the right way and not been reborn as a fox for five hundred lifetimes, would he then have escaped the law of causation that compelled rebirth as a fox? And in that case, where else would he have gone? What else would he have become? It would seem that even if he had not been blind to cause and effect instead of mistakenly (?) trying not to fall into it, as a traveler on the One Vehicle he may still have become a fox for five hundred lifetimes as a skillful demonstration to help Baizhang and his disciples. The whole question of trying to escape his fate seems to point back to the hinayana goal to escape fate (i.e., causation) altogether, which from the Mahayana point of view is no real goal at all and so one is thrown back into dealing with causation.
Finally, what's going on between Baizhang and Huangbo? Huangbo seems to be calling out his teacher Baizhang on the problem of whether there is a right answer and whether the former abbot could or should have avoided becoming a fox. It seems to me that Huangbo knew the standard Zen response would be to strike the smart-aleck for asking such a question that invites being caught up in metaphysics and what-ifs rather than being present and liberated here and now. At the same time, Huangbo was poking at Baizhang for bringing up such metaphysical questions about causation and rebirth in the first place. So Huangbo, knowing what was coming because he wasn't just being a smart-aleck but was trying to bring everyone back into the moment struck first. Baizhang gracefully acknowledged that Huangbo was on point after all. As for the red beard, it is sometimes said that Bodhidharma who came to China from India had a red beard, and so Baizhang was saying that Huangbo had in that moment become a living embodiment of the founder of their lineage.
Please do not mistake any of the above comments as the "answer" to what this koan is about. I merely raise issues that this story raises for me: What is causation really about? Can we escape causation? Mustn't we find a way to work with and through it? Should we be trying to escape something, or rather should we be trying to demonstrate and actualize something for ourselves and others? What if there are no selves or others? Then who suffers from causation? How do we give a right answer in the right way? How do we teach in a way that opens minds and hearts rather than simply setting up new traps and entanglements? How can an answer or response be a "turning word" that turns things around rather than a one-sided opinion that shuts down further thought and reflection?
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Rev. Ryuei Michael McCormick