314 t He F i v e Dy na s t i e s anD t He s ong Dy na s t y
26 Between them there is a perfect flavor that endures. 中有至味永 (zhōng yŏu zhì wèi yŏng)
Poetry and Buddhism are not incompatible, 詩法不相妨 (shī fă bù xiāng fáng)
28 I submit this view for your consideration. 此語更當請 (cĭ yŭ gèng dāng qĭng)
[QSS 14:17.9273; SSSJ 17.905–907]The author of this poem, Su Shi (1037–1101, also known as Su Dongpo, as we
saw earlier), was the greatest literary talent of the Northern Song period. Canliao
(1043–ca. 1116) was one of the several Buddhist monks he befriended. Canliao
was a poet as well as a monk; indeed, he was known for writing poetry that took
leave of the Buddhist style of quietist, meditative verse (thematic table of contents
1.3) and was quite indistinguishable from that the scholar-literati (such as Su Shi)
produced (which accounts for what Su Shi writes in lines 5–8). There are different
ways of interpreting the personal aspect of what Su Shi is saying in this poem.
Oddly enough, one plausible reading is that Su Shi is counseling his friend to be
more like a monk when he composes verse, that he need not feel compelled to ape
the manner of the poet who is prey to uncontrollable emotions.
The poem opens with a description of monk-related ideals (lines 1–4). His mind
should be empty—that is, free from the anxieties that trouble ordinary men. Un-
like a wind instrument, a sword tip does not sing out when blown on, nor does a
charred stalk of millet continue to produce seed. The monk should be similarly
unexpressive. Su Shi then refers to the way that Canliao’s poetry departs from
these monkish expectations (lines 5–8). The next section of the poem (lines 9–16)
summarizes an essay that Han Yu (788–824), the great Tang writer and states-
man, had addressed to a Buddhist monk named Gaoxian (fl. ninth century). Gao-
xian was an aspiring calligrapher, but Han Yu held out little hope that he would
ever excel at the art. Han Yu’s reasoning was that for a calligrapher to produce re-
markable art—especially one who specialized, as Gaoxian did, in the unrestrained
draft-script style—his work had to spring from strong emotions. As a monk, Gao-
xian worked at emptying himself of attachments and the feelings that they bring,
so there was little hope for him as a calligrapher. At the end of his essay, Han Yu
moderates his pessimistic prediction somewhat, adding that since Buddhists are
known to be good at magic and illusion, Gaoxian may achieve some success de-
spite his inherent disadvantage. This is the statement that Su Shi takes issue with
in line 18.
The final section of Su Shi’s poem (lines 17–28) presents a theory of artistic
creativity that is an alternative to that which Han Yu had offered. The fact that Han
Yu was talking about calligraphy and Su Shi about poetry counts for little. What
is at issue is the inspiration and orientation of the artist, whatever artistic form
he chooses. Su Shi insists that the Buddhist’s “emptiness and quietude” may also
serve artistic ends. He does not rule out the art of powerful emotions; he simply
suggests that there is another mode of artistic creativity. He even explains the
contribution that emptiness and quietude may make to the artistic temperament.
They allow the artist to dispassionately observe the world around him, to “take in”
all manner of worldly events, and they permit accurate self-reflection (lines 21–