A traditional Zen Story - Is That So?

There was a Zen Master who was very pure, very illumined.

Near the place where he lived there happened to be a food store. The owner of the food store had a beautiful unmarried daughter. One day she was found with child. Her parents flew into a rage. They wanted to know the father, but she would not give them the name. After repeated scolding and harassment, she gave up and told them it was the Zen Master. The parents believed her.

When the child was born they ran to the Zen Master, scolding him with foul tongue, and they left the infant with him. The Zen Master said, “Is that so.” This was his only comment.



He accepted the child. He started nourishing and taking care of the child. By this time his reputation had come to an end, and he was an object of mockery.

Days ran into weeks, weeks into months and months into years. But there is something called conscience in our human life, and the young girl was tortured by her conscience.

One day she finally disclosed to her parents the name of the child’s real father, a man who worked in a fish market. The parents again flew into a rage.

At the same time, sorrow and humiliation tortured the household. They came running to the spiritual Master, begged his pardon, narrated the whole story and then took the child back.”

His only comment: “Is that so.”

**********************************************************************

This story resonates with me...

We get about in our lives, building our reputations, defining our Selves through others...be it our professions, our status, our cultures, our families, what we are told....

What do we do when our belief of ourselves is questioned by others?

How do we react to vilification?

How much of our Self is structured in the views of others?


Why do we question, debate, argue, and hold strong to our beliefs?

Why do we anger when someone says something about us that isn't true?

It all depends upon what one believes.

Is that so?

It is a curious set of questions though...

Why should one feel the need to defend themselves?

Is it not in response to feeling as though they will be held in an unappropriate light? Is it a result of needing acceptance?

it should be called 'o rly?'

It is a curious set of questions though...

Why should one feel the need to defend themselves?


When wrongly accused, how do you manage it, Michael.?


Is it not in response to feeling as though they will be held in an unappropriate light?

And what is that based in, one's perception of themselves? Their ego?


Is it a result of needing acceptance?

That's what I am asking of others...how do they manage false accusations?

How strongly does one hold onto their perception of themselves, their own propaganda?


( I don't know how to do that clever sectional quoting thing)

It depends upon the situation at hand and the severity of the claim against me. I have a tendency to give a passive type response at first, or even ask why or what led to the conclusion about me. At times, it is enough to simply point out the accusation in another light.



I do not believe so much in a Fruedian 'Ego', at least I would not equate it to all self-perception. With that being said...

The only way one knows if an accusation by another is false is if one knows better. So, yes... the 'unappropriate light' would be recognized by the accused, and not the accuser. In the accuser's 'eyes' the accusation holds true, otherwise it would not be made. Focusing on the reasons which constitute the grounds of the accusation is the only accurate method for assessing the validity of a claim.



All self perception is not propaganda, is it?

I've experienced false accusations a number of times in life.... as have we all...

I find the centredness of the zen monk a place I aspire to be...his non concern with how he was perceived externally...

How does one manage a blatant lie, and a public one?

In the past, as a young person, I would have been violently reactive...verbally so...knowing it is an untruth...as in the retelling of circumstances...and the retelling of conversations that are slanted in the accuser's favour.

I have learnt to be a little more like the zen monk... in that silence can be a more 'telling' truth, than defending or being reactive.

Then there is the stance of observor, where the story is retold, with evidence of the conversation, and an opportunity for non involved to take an unbiased look at it.... to point out where perhaps one is sat in reactive behaviours, and owns part of the inappropriate accusations...

It's interesting this story, as we all respond differently...some cry wolf, some adamantly deny, some collapse in horror or righteous indignation...whilst others do nothing.


I want to learn to be 'Is that so?"...

Would that not mean to remove your inner self from the outside world to a certain extent?

Can we really do this in a busy life where we go to work, get in touch with new people all the time?

Would that not that make us a hermit of sorts if we don't care about the outer world anymore?

Just a few questions I would ponder about on my way to becoming 'Is that so?'

To passively allow a misconception to be held as true may be a direct sign of the self-assuredness one has, but to allow the repurcussions - regardless of their basis in truth - to evolve is to knowingly allow one to place themself into a wrongfully concluded position.

It seems to place inner knowns on a level of privacy...

What if the truth never came out?

One would then allow the consequences to unfold without being 'corrected'. That is to allow an injustice to oneself, and perpetuates the collective ignorance of truth. Is that best?

I would ask yourself the reverse question. What does reputation do for us in a society? What can we accomplish when we have the support of others? What can we not accomplish with the denial of support?

Why would someone deny support? Is there risk involved with supporting people in specific endeavors?

What if a person went to a bank and asked for a loan and instead of the bank checking to see if the person was "good for it" they just answered the query with, "is that so" and gave the loan to anyone?

There are reasons for representations of character, ie reputation. Since character is real, and matters, we must engineer a representation for it that can be communicated to parties that are not intimately familiar with the person who's character is in question.

So the fact that these representations are useful, and that useful things are used, means that when misused they have negative ramifications for the ability of the infringed party to go about there normal business in society means that this is viewed as bad. Bad things tend to get people upset . . . makes sense to me.

If someone either has no ties to society, or is not dependent on there reputation to go about there normal business, then indeed they would not care about there reputation.

The problem I see is when someones reputation is caught up in non-demonstrable ideas, not that reputations exist and have an impact on societal behaviors. If I can demonstrate, or show a record that defies the conclusion reached by the defamation then that should be enough to correct the misrepresentation. However people are not always so objective.

I don't have the answers Ms A....

What I hear in this story is someone so profoundly comfortable in his understandings of himself, that 'exterior' accusations fall from him like water...

I agree, it would be removing one's inner self from the 'outside' influences... not taking on other's perceptions of who you are.

I feel that we can remove our inner self...perhaps not 'remove', but not 'engage' (is a better word) the fragile ago aspect of ourself...the part of us that requires recognition, or accolades...the demanding aspect of ourself that requires 'being liked'.. and becomes reactionary when 'disliked' or accused of untruths.


Is it being uncaring of the 'outer' world, or rather, unaffected by the 'outer' world's untruths?

That's more how I see it...external (being other people, or societal) influences that are not our truth.

I am hoping you've read my response to Invisible, Michael, it may clear up a little of where my thoughts, and impressions lie, with the message I hear from this story.

If the truth never came out, the child would have been raised, nourished, and cared for....and the monk would have still known the TRUTH....that he had not 'sired' the child.


Collective ignorance? Of an untruth? Our world is full of them....

Irrespective of the exterior world (Society)...internally one would know the truth...and the untruths.

I hear your logic...and how it sits for you...Billy, and you've demonstrated logical examples as to how you arrive at your logic.

I am by no means suggesting this is so.....for all.

It is a place I aspire to be.

To be unaffected by external untruths.....of me, and my 'character', persona.... or 'understanding of Self'.

Unaffected?

Or simply choose to not allow them to sway what you believe needs doing or being... for you to be right with you.

Certainly, I can also envision examples where the best course is to not rile against the characterization, just continue to be who you are and let your actions speak for you.

Great story of the zen master. There are always many facets to reality, stories help provide us with beautiful and meaningful examples.

The great thing about these kind of stories is that they allow you to see what you want to see in them.

For myself, I do not see the Zen Master as being portrayed as someone that you should try to emulate.

To see the story in a literal reading, the Master seems to be a man who is completely at peace with whatever the world lays at his doorstep; but if you want to take the story literally try moving one step further. He is so detached from the world that he accepts any burden that anyone hands him. At the end of the story he gives away something he should cherish, seemingly without any concern for its well-being. Had someone raised a child for several years, how would that child feel if (irresponsible?) strangers took him away and the man who was raising him simply said, "Is that so?"

I think that perhaps we might view the story in a more metaphorical light and see the Zen Master as a representation of the Universe. That regardless of the choices we make, the universe will be unmoved and unaffected by us. It is our ego which leads us to see ourselves as being more important and more deserving than we really are; and it is in the defense of our ego that we often make poor choices.

The young girl made a poor choice because she was enslaved to her ego (her father's rage and disdain representing society's condemnation for breaking cultural norms) and she lied (represented something false as a truth) so that the world would believe that she was something she wasn't.

It was only after she accepted herself for who she really was and suffered the consequences that she tried to avoid in the beginning that she was able to free herself from the pains of guilt. In short, her lie spared her from nothing and cost her much.

In traditional Zen fashion, the story shows how the universe is unmoved by our petty reliance on who we think we are. I would say, don't try to be the master -- learn from the young woman.

Good point!

Does it not also highlight a passive detachment of one's person from reality?

Come what may, make no attempt to affect it.

Jess642:

That is a matter of an interpretation! (I hear a weakness...)
It seems as if you -- being impressed with Master Zen's pseudo-wisdom -- would like to emmulate his behavior?
In that case, it would also be wise emmulating his circustances -- personal status, marrital status, financial stability, etc. Put yourself in his place:
Would you be able to assume the reponsibility of raising somebody's child, if a court would wrongfully appointed you to? ? ?

* Obviously, I understand, you seem to be longing for the power of injecting a STRONG doubt into the false accusations via a simple "IS THAT SO?" That trick requires a common recognition of your generally accepted wisdom and indisputability... (quite an admirable desire!) -- a mere trifle for a good lawyer...

Perhaps my use of the engrish/americanese rangruage is not clear...I feel communication is not working.. so my apologies if I am less than adept at clearly passing on MY thoughts...


A number of posters have all reached a similar place....

one that I am not in alignment with, at all.

All the examples given are quite valid, and I don't contest the reasoning behind any of it.

HOWEVER....in one's day to day life, what rattles the cages of people's equilibrium?

This 'pseudo' zen master... as he is so cleverly called, is actually that, as it is a 'story', an opportunity for ponderance, and to see that which the reader sees.

and we see many different things.

For me, I again state I have no need to 'rage against the machine' or to 'leap to my defense', in ANY situation...

I know my actions, I know my behaviours....most importantly I know my INTENT.

So for me, 'is that so?'......fits.