Turning the Wheel of Wonder

Recording of Goddard's Translation of Lankavatara Sutra

2011-12-28T14:38:00.000-08:00

Here's a recording of the Lankavatara Sutra The whole sutra is “chanted” in English by Christian Pecaut with separate files for each chapter making 13 mp3 files.

http://www.archive.org/details/Lankavatara
I've downloaded the files and listen to them while I commute. It makes a wonderful commuting experience. Pecault chants in a sing-song voice of rising and falling tones that create a very soothing and dynamic atmosphere of reverence. At times it seems that Pecaut is doing his best not to bust out laughing and only holding it together barely until he gets back on track.

The Lankavatara version being recorded is the one translated by Dwight Goddard in his book A Buddhist Bible which is online at the Sacred Texts site:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bb/index.htm

The main thing I don't like about Goddard's translation is that both the words citta and vijnana are translated into English by using the same word "mind" which causes a lot of confusion when the discussion is about the 8 consciousnesses (vijnana). Thus translating "alayavijnana" as "universal mind" glosses over subtle nuances.

In his 2004 introduction to the etext version of the book, John Bruno Hare explained a bit about the style of translation that Goddard was presenting.

Hare wrote: "Goddard, particularly in this first edition, took the best available translation of key documents and edited them heavily to eliminate repetitious passages and extraneous material. So this is a readers edition, not a critical edition, of these texts. However, he did nothing to water down or simplify the message of the sutras; quite the contrary. One can read this book repeatedly and still come back with new insights on each reading."

But regardless of the translation technicalities, as the Lanka itself says in Goddard's translation,

"Anyone who teaches a doctrine that is dependent upon letters and words is a mere prattler, because Truth is beyond letters and words and books."

We read the Lanka correctly when we read and hear the truth of it and not just the words. This is what Huineng called "turning round the sutra" and "not being turned around by the sutra."

Lastly, for those who wondered where the Zen motto attributed to Bodhidharma came from, we see that the line "not established on word or letters" came from the Lankavatara that Bodhidharma was known to favor. Thus the scholars who claim that the motto came well after Bodhidharma have nothing to stand on when we see that the pieces of the motto came from the Lanka and Bodhidharma was a solid supporter of the Lanka.

New Translation of Lankavatara Sutra by Red Pine

2011-12-18T17:20:00.000-08:00

I just came across Barry Briggs' blog post on Red Pine's new translation of the Lankavata Sutra that he posted about 3 weeks ago. Since the comments section was closed I decided to write some extended comments. Here is Mr. Briggs' original post:

Last week Counterpoint Press sent an "advance galley" copy of Red Pine's new translation of The Lankavatara Sutra. The book was on my Amazon "wish list," so I consider myself pretty fortunate.The Lankavatara Sutra played an important role in the development of Zen Buddhism and, according to legend, Bodhidharma passed on his personal copy to his dharma heir, Hui-k'o. As I understand it, this sutra is important for teaching that consciousness is reality itself. Further, it provides a detailed analysis of consciousness, heady reading for an unconscious fellow like myself.
Red Pine is known for his translations of the Diamond, Heart and Platform Sutras. This new translation looks fully annotated with notes and references, making it especially valuable for those of us who might not grasp its teaching.
Although I haven't read the text, I have skimmed randomly through it. Here's a gem that jumped off page 110:
Mahamati, words are not ultimate truth, nor is what they express ultimate truth. And how so? Ultimate truth is what buddhas delight in. And what words lead to is ultimate truth. But words are not ultimate truth. Ultimate truth is what is attained by the personal realization of buddha knowledge.
I plan to offer an actual review of the book in the coming months. In the meantime, you might pre-order through your favorite bookseller.

********
Some of the commenters on that page shared their reservations about Red Pine's translations suggesting that Red Pine doesn't have a very good grasp of the deeper ideas of Buddhist teaching. I too am looking forward to Red Pine’s new translation, and I also have reservations about how Red Pine does translating. But I strongly disagree that "the problem" with Red Pine's translations has anything to do with his not having "a good feel for what the texts are talking about."

In my view, Red Pine knows exactly what he is doing, and I don’t think that his translations are invalid or illegitimate. It is just that he is translating for the general non-Buddhist audience, so he does not worry about keeping the terminology strictly in accord with the original or presented in the technical jargon of Buddhist rhetoric. People who have no background in the technical terms of Buddha Dharma won’t notice a thing and will be inspired by his translations. But when reviewing the translation against the original texts, it becomes clear that his primary goal in translating is to make the work the most palatable to the most people, not in keeping great accuracy for the original words or Buddhist concepts. For me, knowing that is his goal, I can read his translations without getting my knickers in a twist about his using popular terminology rather than strictly Buddhist terminology. I know if I want the more strict translation to look elsewhere, and that does not prevent me from enjoying how Red Pine translates.

*****

Mr. Briggs wrote,

“As I understand it, this sutra is important for teaching that consciousness is reality itself.”

As D.T. Suzuki writes in his Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra, the companion volume to his translation of the Lankavatara, there is a significant difference between the “consciousness-only” (vijnanamatra or vijnaptimatra) orientation of the Yogacara analysis and the “mind-only” (cittamatra) of the Ekayana (One Vehicle) taught in the Lankavatara.

The doctrine expounded in the Lankavatara and also in the Avatamsaka-sutra is known as the Cittamatra and never as the Vijnanamatra or Vijnaptimatra as in the Yogacara schoool of Asanga and Vasubandhu. (p. 181)

The core refrain of the Lankavatara is that all things are discriminations to be seen as of mind itself.

In his introduction to his translation of the Lankavatara, Suzuki writes,

“Without a theory of cognition, therefore, Mahayana philosophy becomes incomprehensible. The Lanka is quite explicit in assuming two forms of knowledge: the one for grasping the absolute or entering into the realm of Mind-only, and the other for understanding existence in its dualistic aspect in which logic prevails and the Vijnanas are active. The latter is designated Discrimination (vikalpa) in the Lanka and the former transcendental wisdom or knowledge (prajna). To distinguish these two forms of knowledge is most essential in Buddhist philosophy.”

Thus the orientation of the Lankavatara is not that consciousness is reality itself, but that consciousness is the discriminating activity of mind that makes us cling to duality, and only by realization of the non-dual or oneness (ekagra) of Mind-only is the highest samadhi attained.

Suzuki also writes in his introduction to the Lankavatara translation,

“The Lanka is never tired of impressing upon its readers the importance of this understanding in the attainment of spiritual freedom; for this understanding is a fundamental intuition into the truth of Mind-only and constitutes the Buddhist enlightenment with which truly starts the religious life of a Bodhisattva. [...] The awaking of supreme knowledge (anuttarasamyaksambodhi) is the theme of the Prajnaparnmita-sutras, but in the Lanka the weight of the discourse is placed upon therealisation by means of Aryajnana of ultimate reality which is Mind-only. This psychological emphasis so distinctive of the Lanka makes this sutra occupy a unique position in Mahayana literature.”

In other words, the conception that "consciousness is reality" does not pierce the veil of consciousness, and only by piercing the veil of discriminating consciousness can people awaken to the ultimate reality of Mind-only.

*********

To play with the translations for comparison, here are the side by side translations of the section Mr. Briggs selected, as translated by Red Pine, with the same section translated by Suzuki:

Red Pine wrote: Mahamati, words are not ultimate truth, nor is what they express ultimate truth. And how so? Ultimate truth is what buddhas delight in. And what words lead to is ultimate truth. But words are not ultimate truth. Ultimate truth is what is attained by the personal realization of buddha knowledge

Suzuki wrote: Mahamati, words are not the highest reality, nor is what is expressed in words the highest reality. Why? Because the highest reality is an exalted state of bliss, and as it cannot be entered into by mere statements regarding it, words are not the highest reality. Mahamati, the highest reality is to be attained by the inner realisation of noble wisdom;

Suzuki is translating from the Sanskrit edition of Bunyu Nanjo published by the Otani University Press in 1923. I don’t know yet which version Red Pine is using as his basic text, but I assume it is either this Sanskrit version or anotheer. Suzuki compared the Nanjo Sanskrit version against the three extant Chionese translations of Gunabhadra, Bodhirucci, and Sikshananda and also one Tibetan translation. Based on this comparison Suzuki thought there must be some omissions in the Nanjo Sanskrit version.

Comparing the last sentences of the two versions above:

RP: Ultimate truth is what is attained by the personal realization of buddha knowledge

DTS: the highest reality is to be attained by the inner realisation of noble wisdom;

The terms “ultimate truth” and “the highest reality” are translations of the Sanskrit word paramartha (C. 第一義, literally, e.g., “primary meaning” or “first truth”) Other translations could be “the highest matter”, “the chief concern”, etc. I prefer the Chinese literal translation “primary meaning” for the compound term “parama-artha.”

The terms “buddha knowledge” and “noble wisdom” are translations of aryajnana (C. 聖智). Obviously, Red Pine is inserting the word “buddha” to help the reader know that the noble-knowledge being spoken of is the noble-knowledge of a Buddha. But by leaving out the word “arya” that means "noble, honorable, highly esteemed, excellent, worthy one," etc., and inserting “buddha,” Red Pine is going further than I like in translation. The text has arya-jnana not buddha-jnana, so I feel obligated to translate it that way and not change arya-jnana to read buddha-jnana.

The Sanskrit word jnana is a difficult word to translate because it is usually translated as “knowledge” which unfortunately in English connotes more the image of what is the collected data rather than the pure ability to know. This is why Suzuki translates is as “wisdom,” to indicate that it is not the objects or data of knowledge but the act of knowing truly. To explain what the term jnana means, I like the translation “innate intelligence” to indicate that it is not something acquired as knowledge of external things but the innate knowledge or intelligence that we become aware of by meditation that gives us the ability to know the true naturre and conditions of things. But I admit it is a cumbersome term, since for some, “intelligence” also means “what is learned or understood” rather than the ability to learn or act of understanding.

********

I translate this last sentence of the excerpt according to the three Chinese translations like this:

Gunabhadra: That which is the primary meaning is the noble intelligence to which one’s own realization attains.

Bodhirucci: That which is the primary meaning is the noble intelligence confirmed within.

Sikshananda: That which is the primary meaning is the noble intelligence within one’s own field of confirmation.

***********

The Lanakvatara Sutra is a most interesting Sutra in that it does not have much of a narrative and after the opening section, it is primarily in the form of the Bodhisattva-mahasatva Mahamati asking questions about points of Buddha Dharma and Buddha responding to clarify how to perceive from the perspective of Mind-only. The Mind-only perspective is the stance of the Ekayana lineage that Bodhidharma, the founder of the Zen lineage in China, brought from Southern India.

An early reference to Huike, the disciple and Dharmaheir of Bodhidharma, is found in the Continued Biographies of Emminant Monks (續高僧傳) by Daoxuan (道宣) who was not himself a monk in the Zen lineage. In telling about his contemporary,the monk Fachong who lectured on the Lankavatara, Daoxuan says that Fachong was a great admirer of the Lankavatara Sutra and lamented that it was not receiving the respect and recognition that it was due. Fachong travelled extensively in his quest to propagate the Lankvatara and eventually he came upon a group of descendants of Huike who also studied the Lankavatara extensively. Here he had frequent insight into the "Great Point" and was certified to teach the Lankavatara. Then in further travels he met a monk, who had been intimately transmitted by Maser Ke himself, "relying on the One Vehicle lineage of Southern India to explain it." Fachong then lectured over 100 times on the Lankavatara.

Daoxuan states that Zen master (Bodhi)Dharma propagated the Lankavatara South and North: "Forgetting words, forgetting thoughts, and without attainment, the right insight was taken to be the lineage."

The Zen lineage is comprised of all those who have Bodhidharma as their chief ancestor in the Buddha Dharma. Thus every student of Zen must at some time in their career study and realize the "Great Point" of the Lankavatara if they are to consider themselves a true descendant of Bodhidharma. Certainly, to the extent that Red Pine's new translation makes the Lankavatara more accessible to Zen students, this new translation is a great and virtuous benefit to the Buddha Dharma.

********

Cross-posted at Zen Forum International at http://www.zenforuminternational.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=7518

Koans Are Not About Santa Claus

2011-12-13T00:18:00.000-08:00

This essay is a reply to a talk titled “Dogen’s Use of Koans” by Griffith Foulk given on November 12, 2011, at the Bringing Dōgen Down to Earth conference held at FIU Miami. The audio of the talk is available at Ancient Dragon Zen Gate, Audio #124, http://audio.ancientdragon.org/20111112DT_ADZG_dogen2_griffith_foulk_koans.mp3 -

Though I am critical of Foulk’s perspective on koans that is presented in this talk, I do very much appreciate his willingness to present his views and make them available to the public like this. The Dharma neither increases nor decreases, but discussions of the Buddha Dharma like this help to increase people’s awareness and realization of the Dharma.

Griffith Foulk is an academic scholar and my criticism of his approach to koans is centered on his academic orientation on “understanding” koans, as if that is what koans are about. Zen koans are not created by scholars, not used by academics, not appreciated by pundits, and not realized by professors; they are created, used, appreciated and realized by Zen practitioners. This fundamental distinction is lost in talks by academics who tell their audience as Foulk does that after a brief academic presentation “You will understand koans.” The core error with this type of “understanding” is that it applies an inert doctrine as an overlay to a living koan and then claims to have established “understanding” thereby. This is like saying you understand a dog because you know the name of its breed and the major anatomical features of the species. This kind of understanding is so limited that it in no way approaches real understanding of this particular living dog. Likewise, Foulk in no way has approached real understanding of the particular living koans.

Foulk’s talk is titled “Dogen’s Use of Koans” and he attempts to bring Dogen’s use of koans down to earth by presenting a key to understanding all koans through the use of two primary doctrines of Madhyamaka analysis, that is, the doctrines of emptiness and the two truths. Most of the talk describes his method of understanding koans as metaphors used in the context of teaching emptiness.

Foulk begins by alluding to the fact that there is a common misunderstanding that portrays Dogen as not using koans. Foulk is quite correct that this view is erroneous and that Dogen did indeed use koans frequently in his writings and talks as a central teaching device and that Dogen even compiled a collection of 300 koans. It is most unfortunate that in the first half of the 20^th century a legend arose within the Soto branch of Zen that Dogen was opposed somehow to koans. It is amazing to consider how this legend grew independently of Dogen’s actual writings in which any plain reading must clearly observe Dogen’s abundant appreciation and use of koans.

In asking “What are koans?” Foulk also points out correctly that koans are not riddles as the term is commonly used and as koans are often misunderstood to be. But then he refers to a koan and says, “When I’m done in ten minutes you’ll understand it,” which no one who seriously knows koans would ever say even in jest. That a koan is not a riddle, i.e., a problem to be solved or guessed, doesn’t mean the opposite, that it is a locked box that can be opened simply by applying the doctrine of emptiness as a skeleton key to understand every koan. .

Foulk points out that because koans use striking imagery or irreverent non sequiturs that they are often thought of by some scholars as nonsensical statements intended to stop the workings of the intellect or to cut off discursive or dualistic thinking. He dismisses this view as “totally idiotic,” because koans would not be around for over a thousand years if they were nonsensical. But then he throws the baby out with the bath water and leaves aside the basic working of the koan: that even though the koan is not “nonsensical,” there is in fact a strong component to all koans that is intended to cut off dualistic thinking. This is the soteriological “understanding” of koans whose purpose is to act as the ferry to cross over the ocean of afflictions by turning awareness around to its own source. This function of “turning the light around” is called in Sanskrit paravrtti and will be discussed further below.

On the question of the translation of the word “koan,’ Foulk says “The term ‘koan’ is often translated as ‘public case,’ but that also is not correct.” However, it is Foulk who is incorrect on this point. The word koan as it has come into English is from the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese word gongan composed of two characters gong (J. ko) and an (J. an). Foulk wants to make much out of the fact that gong means “public official, a magistrate or a judge” but he is just plain wrong when he says it doesn’t also mean “public” without the “official.” Chinese characters do not change form as English does when a noun is made plural, turned into a verb, or made into an adjective. So the term gong means both “public” and “public official” and the term gongan or koan means, depending on usage, either “public case” or “case of a public official.” In the current usage within Zen practice, it makes much more sense to use just “public case” as the koan has become public and none of the players in koan are actually “public officials, magistrates, or judges” even though, as Foulk points out, they can be metaphorically imagined to be acting judicially. This little detour into translation points just appears to be an attempt at scholarly one-upmanship.

Next, Foulk presents some of the traditional contexts for koan use. He points out that in public meetings, a monk may come forward and ask about a koan or a teacher may raise a case on their own to comment on as part of their teaching. Also a student may bring a koan into a private interview with the master. However, at this point Foulk leaves out the most important aspect of current koan use in Zen practice today in those Zen schools that use koan inquiry, which is that in the private interview setting the teacher will raise a koan and present it to the student to measure or check the student’s realization. This is the hub of all koan use, and Foulk’s omission or lacuna on this point says much about how he misperceives koans.

The central point being made is the following: “Koans are not nonsensical. This is the point I want to stress. There is a standpoint from which they make sense and they’re perfectly logical. They do involve a lot of word play, punning, joking, metaphorical flights of fancy, but all of those are grounded in an understanding of the point being made.” He concludes this analysis saying that “The meaning of any koan can be explained in logical philosophical language, but that’s not the rules of the game. The rules of the rhetorical game of commenting on them call for a rhetorical response in kind.”

First, there are many different kinds of “understanding” and “logic” and Foulk seems to ignore that every understanding is based on its particular standpoint. So koans may be “understood” from the standpoints of history, sociology, psychology, phenomenology, ontology, soteriology, etc., and even from a standpoint of Madhyamaka Buddology, but so what? Of course there is a logical standpoint that can be overlaid onto koans to make them appear “perfectly logical” but does that really have anything to do with the function of koans or just with the analytical measuring tool that results in what is labeled as “understanding”?

Koans are not “rhetorical games” and to call them such is to malign them just as much as one does by calling them “riddles.” Why Foulk acknowledges that koans are not “riddles” but then calls them by the equally erroneous term “rhetorical games” is expressive of his scholarly approach in which nothing about koans is really understood, but the gamesmanship of the academy is front and center. What Foulk misses is that the “logical philosophical language” that he uses to “understand” koans is after the fact of the koan itself and is merely a case of putting the cart before the horse. Koans are about the horse, or the ox to use the more Buddhist associated animal, that is pulling the cart and not about the cart. And focusing on the ox rather than the cart is not merely a rhetorical game; rather it is the essence of Zen itself and the factor that distinguishes Zen from all other forms of Buddhism that focus on the carts. And it is the factor that Foulk has completely missed in this presentation.

Foulk would have people believe that koans are making points of Buddhist doctrine to be understood. This is wrong, but it is a nuanced error. In its fundamental aspect, the koan represents a nexus or nodal point of awakening or potential for awakening. Buddhism is about awakening and Buddhist doctrine when rightly understood is about the various paths to awakening. Therefore koans may be analyzed in terms of Buddhist doctrine because it is the function of Buddhist doctrine to analyze life in terms of awakening and koans are both about awakening and life. But that analysis does not mean that the koan is understood, it only means that the doctrine applied to the koan is understood. There is a big difference between these two aspects.

In other words, every koan has within it a presentation of some Buddha Dharma. Why? Because Buddha Dharma is about life and Buddha Dharma can be related to every aspect of life and koans represent life and thus also represent the Buddha Dharma of the life represented in the koan.

I like the analysis that every koan can be understood through the multidimensional prism of the Three Treasures of Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha. That is, every koan has a Buddha aspect, a Dharma aspect, and a Sangha aspect. Foulk primarily focuses on the Dharma aspect and mostly ignores the Buddha aspect. But more importantly, Foulk only focuses on one Dharma aspect, that of the Madhyamaka analysis of Emptiness and the Two Truths. This is nothing other than a Buddhist version of philosophical reductionism.

So how does this work for Foulk? He compares Dogen’s use of koans with the Linji lineage Zen master Dahui Zonggao (大慧宗杲) (1089–1163), the most well known koan master of the time, as advocating focusing on the koan and “go into trance” to have a breakthrough experience. The crassness of the term “trance” in this context is only understandable when one recognizes that Foulk has a pejorative view of koan practice calling it by the derogatory term “kanna zen.” He says Dogen did not advocate using koans as a device in mediation for a single moment of awakening and instead used koans in his teaching so that over a long period of time one would get a different point of view that could be called awakening. Of course this ignores the fact that in his own life Dogen did indeed have a single moment of awakening, but whether it is Foulk or Dogen who is ignoring that Dogen had his own all important single moment of awakening is something to be left to another discussion.

Then Foulk takes up Dahui’s favorite koan and perhaps the most famous koan in the West, “Zhaozhou’s Dog.” He relates the koan like this:

A monk asked Zhaozhou, “Even in a dog, is there Buddha nature or not?”

And Zhaozhou said “Wu” (or in Japanese “Mu”).

Foulk explains that saying “Wu” means “there is none,” so that Zhaozhou is saying the dog does not have Buddha nature which files in the face of standard Buddhist teachings that all beings have Buddha nature. Foulk then says it can be explained like this: “To ask if a dog has Buddha nature is just like asking, ‘Does Santa Claus have a red suit?’”

From here, Foulk goes wrong. He says that everyone knows Santa Claus has a red suit just like all Buddhists know a dog has Buddha nature, but that everyone knows that Santa Claus does not exist and so the red suit also does not exist, just like Buddhists know that a dog does not exist so the Buddha nature of the dog also does not exist. It seems to make no difference to Foulk that the non-existence of Santa Clause is a different order of non-existence from the non-existence of either the dog or Buddha nature. By ignoring this distinction between the two kinds of non-existence, Foulk is ignoring an important distinction of Buddha Dharma.

When he says Santa Claus doesn’t exist in an ultimate sense, he is relying on Madhyamaka analysis and its two primary doctrines of Emptiness and the Two Truths. He says that the doctrine of Emptiness is that there is no subjective being and no objective thing (dharma) as both are mere empty categories, and the doctrine of the Two Truths is that there is the conventional truth that beings and things exist and the ultimate truth that in its Emptiness no being or thing exists. Foulk then goes on to say “Emptiness makes all language defective.”

The limitations of this flawed dualistic analysis of the Two Truths are what led to the Yogacara analysis of the Three Natures or Three Truths. In this analysis, there is a significant difference between an actual living dog and Santa Claus. While both the dog and Santa Clause have the constructed nature of conventional truth, that is, the constructed images of identity based on language, only the dog has the interdependent nature that can be petted, can retrieve a ball, can lick its master’s face, etc., and Santa Claus doesn’t, and only the dog has the fulfilled nature of its Buddha nature and Santa Claus doesn’t. In other words, the dog is a living being and Santa Claus is not. It is the evidence of Foulk’s entanglement in Madhyamaka philosophical scholasticism rather than Buddhist practice that he does not recognize this living distinction between a dog and Santa Claus and instead says, “there is no such thing as Santa Claus or a dog.”

Based on this faulty analysis, Foulk then asserts that this view of Emptiness and the Two Truths is the underpinning of all of koan literature. He says that since all language is defective because it can only convey conventional truth and never ultimate truth, that a hit or a blow is more appropriate than even saying “Wu” because even the word “Wu” is defective as it too is language. In this shallow analysis, Foulk makes himself appear completely ignorant about how the “hit” is used to communicate various meanings or messages, none of which are usually a message that “language is defective.” In other words, the “hit” presumes as its context the understanding that language is limited within the field of duality and that the hit is effective to get around the usual distractions of duality, but that is the presumption for the context of the message, not the message itself. Foulk loses this point completely.

Again, Foulk takes up another famous koan, again one with Zhaozhou as the protagonist, Zhaozhou’s Cypress Tree. Foulk calls it the “Oak Tree in the Garden,” which, by the way, reveals that he is using the Japanese sources that call the tree an oak tree rather than the Chinese sources that call the tree a cypress tree. This koan, as I translate it, goes like this:

A monk asked Zhaozhou, “Like what was the intent of the ancestral founder coming from the west?”

Zhaozhou said, "The cypress tree in front of the hall.”

The “ancestral founder” is a reference to Bodhidharma who brought the Zen lineage to China in the East from

India

in the West. So the question translates into “What was the purpose of bringing Zen Buddhism to China?” (Foulk unfortunately, misremembers this koan when he presents it and has it coming from Yunmen by mistake rather than Zhaozhou and he has the question as “What is Buddha?” rather than the question as above. Be that as it may, it doesn’t matter as far as Foulk’s wrong turn in understanding the koan.)

Foulk, then says, “When he is asked, ‘What is Buddha?’ how about saying ‘Santa Claus’?” Like when he could not distinguish between the dog and Santa Claus, now Foulk is unable to distinguish between the living tree and Santa Claus. This inability to differentiate between living breathing feeling sentient beings and myths on Foulk’s part must give us pause as this is the primary issue of the Bodhisattva path of Mahayana Buddhism. .

tTo Foulk “one of the tricks of koan rhetoric” is that if often uses metaphors and similes without using words like “like” or “as if” to indicate the presence of metaphor. This is a bogus charge of the academic. No Zen practitioner worth his or her salt gets confused by such things. Often, as the above example of the Cypress Tree shows, the word “like what” is often in the question, so there is no need for the reply to include it. But even if the word “like” is not present there is no infirmity in the verbal exchange because it is not a rhetorical game relying on metaphor. Foulk seems to completely misunderstand the use of metaphor in koans. Yes the “Cypress Tree” can be seen as a metaphor, but that is only one aspect of it, and not even the main or central aspect. More important, is the fact that the cypress tree is a living being actually present in its living appearance. Again, this deconstructs Foulk’s “Two Truths” analysis, where all language is defective, in favor of the Zen preference for the “Buddha nature” analysis of living beings as expressions of living Suchness.

It is at this turning point that Foulk misapprehends the point of koans. Koans are not as Foulk states, teaching points about emptiness or the Two Truths based on the underpinning of seeing that ultimate truth is just the understanding of the limitations of language. Koans are not about anything even remotely intellectual as that. Koan work is within the context of recognizing that language is limited by its inherent duality, not by its inability to express ultimate truth. Koan work is about seeing through the limitations of the dualities that frame our views of reality and our lives, including the structural dualism of views such as doctrines of “the Two Truths.”

In Foulk's view, koans are rhetorical games used for the purpose of teaching us the ultimate truth that language is defective. However, koans are not that at all. Koans are living expressions of teachers pulling out the nails and pegs of dualism that hold together our constructed realities. Here, recognizing that language is limited is not the ultimate truth, but only the signpost that suggests we are going the wrong way in search of the ultimate truth that is our Buddha nature and own true suchness. The point of koans is all about turning us around from grasping at externals based on our dualistic views, to turn the light of our own awareness around to see the source of awareness itself.

This “turning around” is what I call the Buddha Treasure aspect of the koan. The Dharma Treasure aspect is seeing how the koan relates and conveys an aspect of Buddhist teaching, and this Dharma Jewel aspect is often conveyed in metaphor as well as practical imagery and presence. When Zhaozhou was asked what was the intent of Bodhidharma coming to

China

to convey the Zen lineage, his response of “The cypress tree in front of the hall,” was not a teaching about the emptiness of language like Santa Claus is empty, but about the living presence of a living tree in the living world before the hall.

In the metaphorical aspect, Zhaozhou was saying that as the tree gives shade and solace and beauty so does the practice of Zen. He was saying, too, that this very tree and its actual location before that hall was the living realization of the purpose of Bodhidharma’s Zen lineage, not some conceptual idea as Foulk would have it about Two Truths or a fantasy that the existence and nonexistence of the cypress tree is equal to the existence and nonexistence of Santa Claus.. Zhaozhou’s response was leaping clear of that exact hot water of duality of existence and nonexistence that Dogen refers to in his essay Genjo Koan. That which is the leaping clear of the dualistic framework of language is the Buddha aspect of complete unity and clarity that is in all koans, in both the question and response, and that is only found by the turning around that all the past Zen masters including Dogen emphasized in their practical teaching of zazen.

This turning around of paravrtti is at the heart of Dogen’s Zen just as it is at the heart of koan practice and is directly how he used koans in his literary efforts. Everything that Dogen wrote that included koans was about confronting our own grasping at externals by affirming our dualistic frameworks and about turning around from that wrong practice. Based on the paucity of the available records, none of us will ever know definitively how Dogen did or did not use koans in personal interviews or as meditation methods, but there are enough suggestions in his writings to confidently conclude that he used koans in both contexts of personal interviews and in meditation, at least to some degree.

The Anima and Animus in Buddha Dharma

2011-11-06T12:17:00.000-08:00

My intellectual goals regarding psychology and Buddhism are to harmoinze Buddha Dharma with archetypal depth psychology, as the truth of mind is necessarily both the basis of Buddha Dharma and of anything that can be called modern psychology (not to be confused with modern neuro-science masquerading as psychology).

In his archetypal depth psychology, Carl Jung presented the psychological view of the structure and function of consciousness that is remarkably similar, and I would say virtually identical, to the Buddhist analysis of the Five Skandhas and Eight Consciousnesses. That is, in looking at a zebra, it might be described by some as a horse with stripes or as a donkey with painted lines, but though the words differ the description indicates the same thing is being viewed. Likewise, though Jung's archetypal psychology uses a different framework and language, it is absolutely clear to me that he is observing the same mind and the same structure and function of consciousness that the Buddhist masters have observed. This is what makes it clear to me that mind is not something culturally conditioned, though cultural conditions may lead us to argue about our observations of the mind.

Question: I wonder how the Jungian anima and animus reflect in the five skandhas. It does look as though patriarchy reflects in both Buddhism and Jungian thought quite well. A hero with a thousand faces, sure, but all the faces are male. Zeus is a male. God is a male. Mohamed is a male. Brahman is male. And of course Buddha is male.

Okay, let's see.

Q. How does the Jungian anima and animus reflect in the five skandhas?

Anima and animus are primary functions in relation to the ego complex, and I see them as aspects primarily of the fourth skandha. To speak of the full complexity of the situation means to acknowledge that the anima and animus also rely on the first three skandhas, but their primary expression is as configurations of the fourth skandha upon which self-consciousness is constructed.

The anima or animus is the reflective image of our ego-complex that takes our identity beyond the personal into the impersonal. It is the vital aspect of our feeling our life to be "animated" and filled with life. We come to know this aspect of our psyche throught the image of the "other", but it is the "other" that we are drawn to through the psychic energy called libido. As this "other" is the one that draws out our libido from being wrapped up in our personal self-image to move toward the world, it is met or felt through the image of the contra-sexual personification. Thus the male imagines the feminine anima, and the female imagines the masculine animus. This is why sexual energy is the physical(ized) aspect of the psychic energy of libido, that is why we encounter the libido first as sexual energy.

Appreciation of the function of polarity and opposites that is expressed in the anima-animus analysis is also integral to the analytic framework of the skandhas. This is made clear by Great Master Huineng in the Platform Sutra when he discusses the opposites in the context of teaching about the 5 skandhas and 18 Realms (dhatus). Though he doesn't mention the specific pair of opposites of "male and female" he mentions pairs like "sun and moon," and "shady and sunny" (the synonyms of Yin and Yang") which are common images for male and female. It is the polarity function of the skandhas that is the point of how the opposites of consciousness arise from the skandhas and manifest as opposites which confuse us and become false thinking when we disjoint the opposities and believe they can exist independently of the other.

The anima and animus is the function of consciousness that entices us out of the defensive position of the ego into engagement with the world. For example, using some of the opposites used by Huineng, if we see the world as cruel, the anima or animus can draw us into engagement through the anima or animus appearing compassionate. If we see the world as muddy, the anima or animus can draw us out by appearing clean or pure. Form and emptiness are likewise like this.

Q. A hero with a thousand faces, sure, but all the faces are male. Zeus is a male. God is a male. Mohamed is a male. Brahman is male. And of course Buddha is male.

Sure, we can't argue aginst the fact that patriarchy took over most of the world's societies. But that does not mean that patriarchy is the truth, or that Buddhism is limited to patriarchy. Over the years, the recognition of the problem of one-sided patriarchy became apparant.
Of course, Zeus was accompanied by the goddess Hera, and only a partisian of the patriarchy would dare to undervalue Hera and the other goddesses.

In Christianity, the mother Goddess was indeed missing in the Garden of Eden and only appears through her earthly messenger the serpent, who then becomes vilified by the father God, but this is rectified by the development of the Madonna image to take the place of the missing mother in the Garden.

In Buddhism, the the importance of and reintegration of the feminine arose in several ways. One way was the designation of the Prajna-paramita as the mother of the Buddhas. Another way was in the Sutras such as the Vimalakirti Sutra and Queen Srimala's Lion's Roar Sutra that explicitly portrayed women as every bit the equal of men.

So, strictly speaking all the faces are not male. But admittedly, in Buddhist countries the cultural patriarchy has been slow to respond (if at all) to the equality of opposites that Buddhism teaches. This is largely due to Buddhism usually taking a nonconfrontational approach to such cultural politics, or in some countries actually turning a blind eye to the problem of patriarchy.

Q. How does the anima and animus function in relation to the defensive position of the ego?

The most important example of this within the context of the Buddha story is the appearance of the maiden Sujata. If we view the life story of Buddha as an embodied archetypal story of the journey of awareness to awakening, then the anima appears in a most pivotal and crucial role, that of the milk maid who rescues Buddha from the impending death caused by his own asceticism.

While Buddha remained in the castle, he was still within the domain of family and tribe and so could not develop the individuation necessary for awareness to awaken. The ego must be developed for this. When Buddha left the palace this was the necessary initial stage of individuation of the ego. Buddha initially developed the ego by study of the Dharmas of any teacher he could find. However, this is not sufficient on its own because the development of the ego under the sway of the fight or flight instincts creates the defensive position vis a vis the environment, i.e., the world, or an attack position. Thus the ego either defends against the world or wants to become a world conqueror. Study becomes a way of trying to conquer the world. Modern science shows us how this path turns out. Thus for a conscientious ego, it becomes clear that the world cannot really be conquered by study, only more questions arise with every one answered, Only more ways that we are conquered by the world are shown to us, for example, DDT, radiation poisoning, global warning, as the humbling responses of the world to our attempts to conquer it.

In the Buddha’s story the ego-complex is played out by Buddha adopting the ascetic approach in which the world is simultaneously both defended against and attempted to be conquered by the same ascetic practices. The ascetic believes the world can be conquered by not allowing it to attack oneself through the desires and needs of the flesh, The ascetic believes that the impure, dirty, confusing, and entangling world cannot conquer oneself if one literally removes oneself from the world’s influences. However, this is where the conscientious ego, though necessary in the developmental scheme of awareness, also comes to the limit of itself and the anima and animus are necessary to be constellated for the journey to continue to fruition.

The Buddha’s extreme indulgence of asceticism is the perfect example of the ego’s self aggrandizement and defending itself against the world by creating an image of the world’s muddy, impurity, ignorance, etc. and the ego-based idea that to overcome the world one must separate oneself from all of that muddiness, impurity, ignorance, etc. Here the story of Buddha engaging in asceticism with five fellow ascetics is noteworthy because it show Buddha as the sixth consciousness of thinking attempting to remove himself from the world along with the five sense consciousnesses. However, because Buddha carries this to the extreme, he is able to come to realize the hopelessness of this one-sided approach of the ego. At this stage then the anima is constellated first in the form of a lute, then in the form of the milk maid.

At first the anima comes to us in odd ways that we don’t necessarily recognize in anthropomorphic images. Buddha at the edge of his despair is roused from his anguish by the sounds of the lute being played. From this experience he comes to understand the embodied meaning of the Middle Way. If the strings are too loose they cannot make the melodious sound, if they are too tight they will break and not make any sound. Only the Middle Way of tuning between too loose and too tight will allow the string to vibrate and make music. In the life story of Buddha, this is the first recognition of the Buddha that can truly be called Buddha Dharma. From this awareness of the Dharma activity of opposites heard in the vibrations of a lute string, the Buddha Dharma is born. Some versions of the story say that it was Indra who appeared in the passing boat playing the lute. This obviously points to the archetypal or mythic aspect of consciousness as the source of the experience. The lute itself is the anima image that through its sweet voice has drawn Buddha back to engagement with the world by the recognition of melody, tone, sweetness, etc. as playing their role and that the Way is to be found not by defending against or attempting to conquer the world.

However, at this point the Buddha is so weak that he cannot even walk, so this means that the ego, if left only to its own resources will starve itself to death. Something deep in the psyche is moved to rescue the ego from this predicament, and the Buddha story portrays this next anima movement (animation) by the milk maid. There are several versions of this story, as there should be with any truly archetypal story. One version has a passing goat herd boy come by and offer goat’s milk to rescue the Buddha, but this seems to be a version tinged with patriarchal aversion to the female image that is intended to erase the sexualized aspects of the anima from the story. This misunderstanding comes because the tree that Buddha was sitting under was called “the tree of the goatherd” (ajapala). Other versions just say “villagers brought him food.” The more archetypically authentic stories portray the milk maid version. Here’s one.

The young woman was named Sujata (“well born”). (Here it should be noted that Sujata also is one of the names or epithets of the Buddha himself, so this is another way of pointing to the archetypal context of the story where the maid Sujata is the anima figure of the Buddha Sujata.) Sujata the maid had been lamenting her inability to conceive a child. She goes to the village sage who tells her that in order for her to become pregnant that she must provide the tree [i]deva[/i] (or divinity of the tree) with a special mixture of rice milk. Sujata prepares the milk by using milking the best cows and feeding that milk to better cows and then feeding that milk to better cows until she has the best milk possible. Then she mixes is with the best rice and goes to the forest to offer it to the tree deity of “the goatherd tree.” Buddha happens to be sitting under this tree and in his completely emaciated state he is unrecognizable as a human and Sujata believes him to be the tree deva and offers her milk and rice mixture to Buddha in a golden bowl. . Buddha receives the rice milk and is saved from starvation and revived. The archetypal story continues with the golden bowl being tossed into the river and floating upstream with the involvement of the Nagas but that can be explored at another time. At this point it suffices to say that the involvement of the Naga here is the transition of the anima figure to the deeper imagery of the psyche.

What is the necessary food that the anima brings to us to save us from the starvation diet of the ego complex and aid us in our enlightenment? We learn something from Bodhidharma when he is asked about this in the work attributed to him called “The Discourse on Breaking Up Appearances” (破相論), loosely translated by Red Pine as “The Breakthrough Sermon.”

This discourse is historically important to Zen as it clarifies many points of differentiation between the Three Vehicles approach to Buddha Dharma already present in China when Bodhidharma arrived, and the perspective of the One Vehicle Lineage of Southern India that Bodhidharma brought to China. The Discourse is presented in the classical style as interrogatories on points of Dharma with Bodhidharma’s responses. The gist of the Discourse is that “Only the one Dharma of contemplating Mind unites and includes all Dharmas and is superlative for introspecting the essential.” After this point is made, the Discourse explores how the Buddha Dharma is perceived from this perspective.
At one point the interrogator asks about the story of Buddha having to receive Sujata’s offering before realizing enlightenment. This doesn’t make sense to the questioner if just contemplating Mind is the direct Dharma Gate to enlightenment.

Here’s Red Pine's translation:

[Q.] But when Sbakyamuni was a bodhisattva, he consumed three bowls of milk and six ladles of gruel prior to attaining enlightenment. If he bad to drink milk before be could taste the fruit of buddhahood, how can merely beholding the mind result in liberation?

[A.] What you say is true. That is how he attained enlightenment. He had to drink milk before he could become a Buddha. But there are two kinds of milk. That which Shakyamuni drank wasn’t ordinary impure milk but pure dharma-milk. The three bowls were the three sets of precepts. And the six ladles were the six paramitas. When Shakyamuni attained enlightenment, it was because he drank this pure dharma-milk that he tasted the fruit of buddhahood. To say that the Tathagata drank the worldly concoction of impure, rank-smelling cow’s milk is the height of slander. That which is truly so, the indestructible, passionless dharma-self, remains forever free of the world’s afflictions. Why would it need impure milk to satisfy its hunger or thirst?
The sutras say, "This ox doesn’t live in the highlands or the lowlands. It doesn’t eat grain or chaff. And it doesn’t graze with cows. The body of this ox is the color of burnished gold." The ox refers to Vairocana. Owing to his great compassion for all beings, he produces from within his pure Dharma-body the sublime Dharma-milk of the three sets of precepts and six paramitas to nourish all those who seek liberation. The pure milk of such a truly pure ox not only enabled the Tathagata to achieve buddhahood but also enables any being who drinks it to attain unexcelled, complete enlightenment. (From [i]Zen Teaching of Bodhidharma[/i], translated by Red Pine, p. 91-93.

Here's my translation:

Question. The Sutra says that at the time the Tathagata of the Sakyas was a Bodhisattva he had already drank three pecks (about 6 gallons) and six liters of milk and rice gruel just to complete the Buddha Way. Before, because he drank the milk, afterwards he could bear witness to the Buddha fruit. How could it be that merely contemplating mind attains liberation?!

Answer: Truly know that which you declare is without falsehood! Certainly, because he ate the milk like that at first, he became Buddha. Of that which is declared to be “eating milk” there are two kinds. That which is the food of the Buddha was not indeed the worldly milk of impurity and actually was the clear and pure Dharma milk of True Suchness! That which was three pecks exactly was the three collected pure precepts. That which was six liters exactly was the six paramitas. At the time of completing the Buddha Way from eating the clear and pure Dharma milk like this, just then he could bear witness to the Buddha fruit. If it is declared that the Tathagata ate the worldly concoction that was the rank and malodorous milk of the ox of impurity, h1ow could it not be the extreme of the wrong of slander?!
That which is true suchness itself is the indestructible diamond (vajra) without leakage, the Dharmakaya forever free from every and all sufferings of the world. How could it be necessarily so, that the milk of impurity is used to fill the hunger and thirst? It is like the (Mahaparinirvana) Sutra which articulates, “This ox does not dwell in the high plains and does not dwell in the low wetlands, does not eat unhulled rice, horse grain, chaff or bran, and doesn’t participate with the bull ox in common with the herd. The color of this ox body is made violet as burnished gold." That which is declared here as “the ox” is Virocana Buddha! Because of using great compassion and sympathy for everyone, from within the embodiment of the clear and pure Dharma is produced like this the subtle Dharma milk of the three collected pure precepts and the six paramitas to nurture everyone of those who seek liberation. So indeed the milk of clarity and purity from the ox of true purity is not only to complete the Way of the Tathagata’s drinking; for everyone of the multitude of beings, if they are those who are capable of drinking, then in all cases they attain unexcelled unified thorough enlightenment.

Here we see that Bodhidharma takes the story out of the literal to the archetypal level and explains that what Buddha received at the hands of Sujata was not common milk but the Milk of the Dharma of the Cosmic Buddha. This is important to understand because it is not the anima that provides enlightenment; the anima is the intermediary who brings the initial taste of enlightenment. The anima does not give us enlightenment but is the one who enables us to be fortified to find the place where we can realize enlightenment. Thus Buddha was able to rise from underneath the “goatherd tree” and move to sit under the Bodhi Tree by the nourishment provided by the anima.

There is an important point here in that when Buddha accepted the food from the anima Sujata, the five ascetic companions left him in disgust as if he had given up on the quest for awakening. This is the portrayal of the abandonment of the five sense consciousness as the sixth consciousness turns inward toward the eighth consciousness. More importantly, it shows that when the anima brings the ego out of the self-world opposition, the awareness now can either chose to re-engage in the world as ego or turn away form the world and ego to go further and deeper in contemplating the mind. As Buddha is the one who awakens, the Buddha story tells us the anima’s nourishment is to be used to continue the journey to the Bodhi Tree, not to return to the ordinary world. Thus the awareness that has transcended mere ego awareness by the help of the anima now turns from engagement with the five senses to engagement in direct contemplation of mind. At this point the seventh consciousness appears in the archetypal figure of Mara and attempts to dissuade, confuse, and scare us from the task of directly perceiving the eighth consciousness.

So the role of the anima (or animus for female practitioners) is crucial for awakening as awakening is told in the story of Buddha.

The Five Skandhas

2011-10-23T17:52:00.000-07:00

Here are some comments about the Buddhist analytical framework known as the Five Skandhas. I'm riffing off of the answer.com entry by Barbara O'Brien.

The block quotes are from Ms. O;'Brien:

What are the skandhas? Here is a basic guide. (The non-English names given for the skandhas are in Sanskrit unless otherwise noted.)

The First Skandha: Form (Rupa)

Rupa is form or matter; something material that can be sensed. In early Buddhist literature, rupa includes the Four Great Elements (solidity, fluidity, heat, and motion) and their derivatives. These derivatives are the first five faculties listed above (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body) and the first five corresponding objects (visible form, sound, odor, taste, tangible things).

Another way to understand rupa is to think of it as something that resists the probing of the senses. For example, an object has form if it blocks your vision -- you can't see what's on the other side of it -- or if it blocks your hand from occupying its space.

In one sense, the Skandha of Form is the trickiest to think about. Why? Because it is the suggestion of what is beyond thinking by using objectifying language. In other words it is the psychic view of "the physical." As Carl Jung pointed out, once we take the POV of psychology, we have to stand within the field of the psyche and can no longer pretend that we are standing within the field of the physis or physical world.. In other word what we call "form", "matter", "material", "things" are all categories or differentiations of mind. This is the view of the Lankavatara and the other Mahayana sutras that teach the unity of mind. Once the unity of mind is recognized there is no way to "step outside" of mind. Therefore there is no "form" outside of the differentiation of mind, only our attempts to develop a consensual reality. This why the first skandha is all important but so often overlooked in discussion of the skandhas. In Zen, when phrases like "the bottom of the bucket opens" or "dropping mind and body", it is the letting go of the materialist view of the first skandha that is being referred to by the "bottom breaking" or "dropping body."

Each skandha has one or more core polarities associated with it, indeed we can say it is the field of that polarization that makes the skandhas identifiable as a numbered skandha. With the first skandha, it is the polarization of "inside and outside", "subjective and objective", that is primary.

The Second Skandha: Sensation (Vedana)

Vedana is physical or mental sensation that we experience through contact of the six faculties with the external world. In other words, it is the sensation experienced through the contact of eye with visible form, ear with sound, nose with odor, tongue with taste, body with tangible things, mind (manas) with ideas or thoughts.

It is particularly important to understand that manas -- mind -- in the skandhas is a sense organ or faculty, just like an eye or an ear. We tend to think that mind is something like a spirit or soul, but that concept is very out of place in Buddhism.

Because vedana is the experience of pleasure or pain, it conditions craving, either to acquire something pleasurable or avoid something painful.

By referring to "the external world" Ms. O'Brien is showing that she is standing on the first skandha as if it exists objectively. Here we see how the skandhas begin to construct a worldview, or a view of reality. The second skandha is also called "reception" because it acts in relation to this primal split between internal and external. In other words, what we call sensory data is discriminated on the basis that there is an internal and external reality and that the data is coming from an external reality. This works fine for light and sound which we say come from outside, and becomes a little fuzzy with smell and taste as they are sensed as being in the nose and mouth, and then very fuzzy with touch sensations in the body and completely fuzzy with ideation in the mind.

By receiving sensory data pre-screened as it were by the first skandha's polarized division into inside and outside, (me and not me, etc.) the next primary polarization is the allotment of that sense data into the categories of the primary characterization of "pleasure and pain" or "attractive and repulsive", etc. Now we have four boxes for every sensory quantum which are (1) the inside and pleasurable, (2) the inside and not pleasurable, (3) the outside and pleasurable, and (4) the outside and not pleasurable. This basic framework is the foundation for the construction of the house of views that we build.

The Third Skandha: Perception (Samjna, or in Pali, Sanna)

Samjna is the faculty that recognizes. Most of what we call thinking fits into the aggregate of samjna.

The word "samjna" means "knowledge that puts together." It is the capacity to conceptualize and recognize things by associating them with other things. For example, we recognize shoes as shoes because we associate them with our previous experience with shoes.

When we see something for the first time, we invariably flip through our mental index cards to find categories we can associate with the new object. It's a "some kind of tool with a red handle," for example, putting the new thing in the categories "tool" and "red." Or, we might associate an object with its context -- we recognize an apparatus as an exercise machine because we see it at the gym.

I very much disagree with Ms. O'Brien's statement that most of what we call thinking fits into the samjna skandha. Thinking is much more complex and in fact we don't even have conscious thinking until the fifth skandha so most of what we "call" thinking is conscious thinking, so is not often even considered at these unconscious levels of the first four skandhas.

This skandha is of course as she points out integral to the formation of thinking because it is the beginning of the putting together of the differentiations of mind that becomes thinking. It is the third skandha that begins to relate all the items previously labeled according to the four boxes of the first two skandhas, and by using these four-colored building blocks the third skandha puts them together into the nearly infinitely varied patterns (dharmas) of our consciousness code like the four amino acids of DNA are put together to form the mind boggling number of combinations in the genetic code.

It is this conceptualization of associations that we call "perception" in that we are now beginning to be able recognize patterns and call them things (dharmas). Here the multitude of polarities abound and there is no primary polarity as associated with the first, second, and fourth skandhas. That is, the entire world is polarized with such polarities as "soft and hard", "smooth and rough", "male and female", etc.

The Fourth Skandha: Mental Formation (Samskara, or in Pali, Sankhara)

All volitional actions, good and bad, are included in the aggregate of mental formations. How are actions "mental" formations? Remember the first lines of the dhammapada (Acharya Buddharakkhita translation)--

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox.

Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow.

The aggregate of mental formations is associated with karma, because volitional acts create karma. Samskara also contains latent karma that conditions our attitudes and predilections. Biases and prejudices belong to this skandha, as do interests and attractions.

This is the most psychologically challenging of the skandhas to understand. In the context of Jungian archetypal psychology, the fourth skandha is all the mental formations that at one end are the individual complexes and at the other end are the archetypes of the collective unconscious. The "ego" or "self" is only one of the complexes, though it is the individual pole of the primary axis of the mental formations that at the other end is the collective pole that goes by the names of "Self", "God", "Atman" etc. The two ends of this primary axis of mental formations are the "I thou" relationship. However, the mental formations are not a completely connected structure, but more like a solar system or galaxy in which many formations are whirling around in a gravitational relationship but have their own sense or appearance of autonomy in various circumstances.

It is the appearance of autonomy within the central mental formation of the "ego complex" that is the basis for our sense of personal independence and identity. It is this sense of personal independence and identity that is the basis for our self-mage of responsibility and intention. It is this sense of responsibility and intention that is the basis for our karma. That is why the fourth skandha is sometimes identified as "volition."

Ms. O'Brien's saying "All volitional actions, good and bad..." points to another important factor. It is with the fourth skandha that the primary polarity of "good and bad" is developed. At the level of the second skandha there is "pleasure and pain" that acts as the seed of the polarity of "good and bad", but it is not until the activity of the fourth skandha that second skandha polarity becomes developed in the mental formations and "good and bad" are materialized. This is why pleasure is not the sole determining factor of what is "good" though it is a significant factor. The ability to substitute an ideal as a higher good than pleasure is a function of the mental formations as the ego complex interacts with other complexes that create identities such as tribal or national identity in which we would sacrifice our personal pleasure for a greater good. In the religious context it is those factors that become associated with the "god pole" of the central axis that become identified with "the greatest good." For those who do not identify the collective pole of the central axis with a personality image such as a father god or mother goddess, other images may act as substitutes such as "the people", "the nation", "money," "family" etc.

In Zen, getting free from the control of the polarized fields of the fourth skandha's mental formations is what is referred to as "not thinking good and evil."

The Fifth Skandha: Consciousness (Vijnana, or in Pali, Vinnana)

Vijnana is a reaction that has one of the six faculties as its basis and one of the six corresponding phenomena as its object. For example, aural consciousness -- hearing -- has the ear as its basis and a sound as its object. Mental consciousness has the mind (manas) as its basis and an idea or thought as its object.

It is important to understand that consciousness depends on the other skandhas and does not exist independently from them. It is an awareness but not a recognition, as recognition is a function of the third skandha. This awareness is not sensation, which is the second skandha. For most of us, this is a different way to think about "consciousness."

It is also important to remember that vijnana is not "special" or "above" the other skandhas. It is not the "self." It is the action and interaction of all five skandhas that create the illusion of a self.

Having an appreciation of the fifth skandha of consciousness and how it functions within the scheme of analysis known as the five skandhas is essential to understanding the wisdom pointed to by the analytical framework.

Ms. O'Brien's caveats about remembering that consciousness is neither separate nor independent from the other four skandhas is well taken. Another way of saying this is that the distinction of the five skandhas are an expedient means of discussing "one mind" or "one suchness."

However, I would add another caveat that consciousness is not just "a reaction that has one of the six faculties as its basis and one of the six corresponding phenomena as its object." since that conceptualization is a construct of the four skandhas as well. The terms "six faculties" and "six corresponding phenomena" are both phrases that are the result of the first four skandhas. There is no such thing as a "phenomena" that is outside the skandhas. There is no such thing as a "faculty" that is outside the skandhas. "Phenomena" and "faculty" are third skandha appearances that become associated with the "good and bad" evaluations of the fourth skandha so that we congratulate ourselves for the good idea that consciousness is a reaction that has one of the six faculties as its basis and one of the six corresponding phenomena as its object.

To the extent that the term "consciousness only" became associated as consciousness without the appreciation of the other four skandhas the term became one-sided and thus "mind only" was necessary to point to the conscious and unconscious functions that result in our conscious awareness. Awareness of itself is crystal clear, but it is by the friction created by the polarizations of mind that light and shadow are created that then becomes developed into "self consciousness" by which we humans are able to engage in a level of awareness that we call awakening to get free from the selfishness of self consciousness and realize the consciousness of no self, no nature, no mind.

My new translation of "Inscription on Silent Illumination"

2011-09-18T02:18:00.000-07:00

This is my most recent translation completed today. 9/18/11.

Inscription on Silent Illumination

Mo Zhao Ming

By Zen Master Hongzhi Zhengjue of Tiantong (1091-1157)

In silent silence, forgetting speech.

In bright brightness, appearing in front.
When reflected upon, you’re wide open.
Where embodied, numinous.

The solitary illumination of the numinous

Illuminates within and returns to the wondrous.
The moon in the dew, the starry river,
The snowy pine, the cloudy mountain peak.

In the dark yet universally bright.

In hiding yet all the more evident.
The crane dreams the cold of mist.
The water contains the depth of autumn.

The vast kalpas are empty emptiness

Appearances are all together identical.
The wondrous is preserved at the place of silence
Achievement is forgotten within illumination

What is preserved to preserve the wondrous?

Wide awake breaks up confusion.
The path of silent illumination,
The root of freedom from minutiae.

The unobstructed view is free from minutiae,

The gold shuttle, the jade loom.
The straight and the biased revolve,
The bright and dim are causally dependent.

Depending on nothing is the location of capability.

When at the foundation, turning around mutually.
Drinking the medicine of good views,
Beating the drum smeared with poison.

Turning around mutually when at the foundation

Killing or saving life is on us.
From inside the gate emerges the body;
The tip of the branch bears the fruit.

When only silence is the perfect speech,

When only illumination is the universal response,
Response does not fall into achievement.
Speech does not involve listening.

The 10,000 phenomena infinitely connected together

Shine freely and articulate the Dharma
All that proving clearly.
Each and every one questioning and answering.

Questioning and answering, proving clearly,

Precisely mutually responding.
If within illumination you lose silence,
Immediately you see aggressiveness.

Proving clearly, questioning and answering,

Mutually responding precisely.
If within silence you lose illumination
The muddiness becomes remaining things (dharmas).

The principle of silent illumination complete,

The lotus opens, the dream awakens.
The hundred rivers go into the sea.
The thousand summits face the highest peak.

Like the goose choosing the milk,

Like the bee picking the flowers.
The reaching and attaining of silent illumination
Conveys our family of the [Zen] lineage.

The silent illumination of the family of the [Zen] lineage,

Penetrates to the top, penetrates to the foundation.
The body of emptiness,
The arms of the mudra.

The one important event from start to finish,

By the manner of transformation is 10,000 differences.
Huo Shi presented an unpolished gem
Xiangru pointed out the flaw.

To suit the capacities [of people] there are standards.

The great function does not strive.
Within the palace walls, the Son of Heaven.
Outside of the barriers, the General.

The foundation and affair of our family:

Within the compass, within the carpenter’s square.

Transmit it going in every direction.

It is not important to earn praise.

~The Chinese text at CBETA begins at T48n2001_p0100a25(00).

Archetypal Buddhism

2011-09-17T14:05:00.000-07:00

Comment: I really found it interesting that after Buddha's awkening he didn't have that desire to save all beings. He had to be persueded by some diety to teach.

This is a great episode in the Buddha story. As I remember the story, it is not that "he didn't have that desire to save all beings," but that he had the desire yet didn't see how he could effectively communicate what he had experienced to anyone. He was at a standstill point of tension between the idealistic desire to save and the practical realities of how to proceed seeming insurmountable. Who of us does not experience this? His dilemma was that he directly perceived the timeless and wordless profound wisdom (prajna) and inherent intelligence (jnana), yet he felt that on the one hand he was incapable of putting them into words that could be understood by the people of his time, and on the other hand there would be no people who would be able to benefit from the words that he could formulate as opposed to just being made more confused by them.

The appearance of Indra, the "supreme diety" of this dimension, is the recognition of the archetypal truth that our motivation occurs only when an archetypal figure is constellated within mind. Without some kind of constellation (discrimination, differentiation) of an archetypal figure (i.e., a primary configuration of 4th shandha) there is no motivation for us to act. It is just as true to say that every one of our acts has as its motivating mental configuration one or another primary archetypal figure as its constellation or context. Without the primary archetypal figures of the 4th skandha there would be no fruition of consciousness as 5th skandha. The archetypal figures are the constellations in the firmament of our own mind which is the One Mind of No Mind.

In Buddhist terminology, every nirmanakaya Buddha has a samboghakaya Buddha as its intermediate progenitor and the dharmakaya Buddha as ultimate progenitor.

Consciousness depends on our personal complexes which in turn depend on our impersonal or collective archetypes. Self-consciousness is possible because the primary archetype of "god-self" formed in the nascent interaction of discrimination ("the 7th consciousness") where the ocean of concsiouness ("the 8th consciousness") is first stirred can become manifested in the derivitive ego-complex that organizes the reflectivity of consciousness (the 6th consciousness) in relation to the senses (the 1st thru 5th consciousnesses) into the experience of self-conciousness or self-awareness. This process develops over years so that sometime around age 6-8 we have a mostly developed self-consciousness based on the establishment of a self-image (ego complex) that is possible because of the "god-self" archetype having been constellated in mind.

“Full Moon on 9/11/11”

2011-09-12T10:15:00.000-07:00

On nights like this the difference between myth and reality seems blurred.

The full moon crashes into me like a 767 crashing into the South Tower of Manhattan,

Strikes me like lightening splitting the Tower of the Tarot of Marseilles,

And my inner beings jump for their lives only to fall all the way down to the ground,

To be consumed by the swirling maw of dust.

Thankfully, no one is starting a revenge war against the moon in their name.

~gw

9-11: the Day Nothing Changed.

2011-09-11T16:22:00.000-07:00

Again and again we are subjected to the worldwide propaganda machine that tells us 9-11 was the "Day that Changed the World", the "Day of evil that changed the world forever", "Opinion: A day that changed the world", etc.

In fact, 9-11 was a day that changed nothing. What I mean by that is that nothing changed because of the criminal attacks on 9-11. Things change everyday, so of course change has occurred since 9-11. The Department of Homeland Security, the greatest government boondoggle in the history of the USA, was created, but 9-11 was just the excuse, not the cause. We've been going down the road of the American Brand of Fascism since the middle of the 19th century and not one thing related to 9-11 has changed the direction of that road. The fact that 9-11 has been used to hasten us along that road is in no way a change in our world.

Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan have been created, but they too were not caused by 9-11 or anything directly resulting from 9-11. They were caused by government officials with their own agendas of profit-making and self-aggrandizement who have simply used 9-11 as their justification.

9-11 was a day that 3,000 innocent Americans died in a criminal enterprise, and in our orgy of vengeance we have killed hundreds if not thousands times more innocent people. But even that is not a change. Americans have relished such orgies of violence for a long time, such as the piled corpses in the Philippines at the beginning of the 20th century ("Remember the Maine") and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 ("Remember Pearl Harbor"), just to name two examples in the long list of innocent victims of America's revenge fantasies made into manifest destiny.

If in response to 9-11 the American people had come together to change our ways, then we could have said that 9-11 was a day that changed the world. But, no we did not come together to reassert the rule of law to track down the criminals behind 9-11, no we did not come to see as a nation that our own actions as a nation set the stage for 9-11, no we have not changed one thing about our foreign policy and how we resort to military might to maintain the American Empire and its War Racket for the protection of corporate profits.

No, 9-11 is not a day that changed anything in the world or how America does its business. 9-11 is a day that only confirmed and cemented all the worst in ourselves. And today, 10 years later we witness the orgy of self-aggrandizement continuing without change in our orgy of American exceptionalism.

Zazen and Zen-Samadhi, from Bodhidharma to Hakuin

2011-08-25T13:07:00.000-07:00

In the Zen lineage from Bodhidharma to Hakuin, zazen, i.e., sitting meditation, has been described as the method of practice and zen-samadhi (Skt. dhyanasamadhi, C. 禅定, chanting, J. zenjo) is described as the realization of practice.

Bodhidharma (5th/6th century)(From "Great Master Dharma's Discourse on the Nature of Awakening”):

“If a person knows that the six roots (i.e., 6 sense organs) are not real, that the five accumulations (skandhas) are provisional names, and that seeking everywhere for their substance is necessarily to dwell without samadhi, then one should know that such a person expounds the words of the Buddha. The sutra says, "A home in the cave of the five accumulations is called the courtyard of zen. When the inner illumination is opened and unbound, then the gate of the Great Vehicle could not be brighter!"

` To not bear in mind all things (sarvadharma), therefore, is called doing zen-samadhi (dhyana-samadhi). If someone understands these words, then walking, standing, sitting, and lying down are all zen-samadhi. Knowing the mind is empty is called the act of seeing Buddha. Because why? For all Buddhas in the ten directions, in every consideration there is no mind. Not seeing in (by) the mind, is called the act of seeing Buddha.

To unstingily renounce the body is called Great Charity (mahadana). The samadhi of detaching from the various activities is called Great Sitting Meditation (J. dai zazen). Because why? Worldly people are singly directed toward activities, and the Small Vehicle is singly directed toward samadhi. Namely, to pass beyond the worldly people and the sitting meditation (zazen) of the Small Vehicle is called the Great Sitting Meditation. If those who act with this realization, in all the various appearances, do not seek to release themselves and, in all the various illnesses, do not cure their own errors, then this is entirely the power of Great Zen-Samadhi.”

Dajian Huineng (638–713) (From The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Ancestor, Chapter 5, “Sitting Meditation (Zazen)”):

“Learned and virtuous ones, what is called zen-samadhi? Outwardly, to be free from characteristics is doing zen. Inwardly, to not be perturbed is doing samadhi. Outwardly, if one attaches to characteristics, inwardly, the heart-mind is immediately perturbed. Outwardly, if one is free from characteristics, the heart-mind is immediately not perturbed. The root nature by itself is pure, by itself is samadhi. Only by seeing conditions and thinking about conditions is one immediately perturbed. If someone sees various conditions and the heart-mind is not perturbed, this is real samadhi. Learned and virtuous ones, outwardly, to be free from characteristics is immediately zen. Inwardly, to not be perturbed is immediately samadhi. Outwardly, zen, inwardly, samadhi, this is doing zen-samadhi.

Dazhu “The Great Pearl” Huihai (second half of 8^th century) (From “Discourse On The Essential Gate Of Entering The Way Of Immediate Awakening”):

Question:“For a man to cultivate the fundamental root, what method (dharma) of cultivation should be used?”

Answer, “Only by sitting meditation (zazen) is zen-samadhi quickly attained. The Dhyana Paramita (lit. Zen Gate) Sutra says, ‘To seek the noble intelligence (arya-jnana) of the Buddha, then zen-samadi is necessary. If there is no zen-samadhi, thoughts and ideas clamor and stir and spoil good roots.’”

Question: “Say, what is doing zen, and say, what is doing samadhi?”

Answer: “To not give birth to false thoughts is doing zen. Sitting to see the root nature is doing samadhi. That which is the root nature is your unborn mind. In that which is samadhi there is no mind that responds to the environment and the eight winds are not able to stir. For that which are the eight winds, benefit and ruin, defamation and honor, praise and ridicule, and suffering and pleasure are called the eight winds. If like this one attains that which is samadhi, even if one is an ordinary man, one then enters the rank of Buddha.”

Hakuin Ekaku (1686 - 1768) (From Ode to Sitting Meditation (Zazen Wasan)):

As to the zen-samadhi of the Mahayana,

There is just too much to praise.
The several perfections such as charity, morality, and such;

Chanting Buddha's name, confession and repentance, austerities, and the like;

The many good deeds and various virtuous pilgrimages;
All these are coming from within it.

Also, a person succeeds by the merit of a single sitting

To destroy one's immeasurably accumulated crimes.
Where then should the evil appearances exist?
The Pure Land is then not far away.

This last quote is most interesting because in virtyually all translations of Hakuin's "Zazen Wasan" the term "zenjo" (zen-samadhi) is translated as "zazen" in order to make it easy for English readers. The fact is that the term "zazen" only appears in the title of Hakuin's "Ode to Zazen" and nowhere appears in the body. Unfortunately that kind of attempt to make the idea accessible for English readers leaves out the very essential nuance that is the difference between zazen as the activity of sitting-zen and zen-samadhi as the realization.

These great zen masters all directly stated the relationship between zazen and zen-samadhi. Today we hear a lot about zazen, but the recognition and realization of zen-samadhi is hardly spoken of.

I assert that without the realization of zen-samadhi, there is no true zazen, no matter how much zazen is talked about as a practice.

Best News of the Day = Pastafarian Rights

2011-08-16T11:25:00.000-07:00

The best news of today, at least the news that made me laugh the loudest, comes from Austria where a Pastafarian has had affirmed his right to wear his preferred head covering on his driver's license photo!
Yes, that is Pastafarian with a "P" and his head gear is a pasta strainer! No kidding, here's the story with photo . As a Pastafarian member of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Mr. Nico Alm has had his day in court and won! I tell people who are thinking of going to court that you are never guaranteed to get justice, you are only guaranteed to get a decision. It's looks like Mr. Alm got both.

Check out the Religion Dispatches article for the full story. And enjoy your next plate of pasta!

P.S. For those who may not read through the whole article, here are the last two paragraphs. I love the Pastover and Ramendon. For us Zennies who have the Rohatsu sesshin meditation retreat to honor Buddha's enlightnment we might want to consider having a Ropastsu retreat.

While FSM began as a joke, the community that has formed around it has come increasingly to resemble Durkheim’s moral community. Historically, critics of organized religion have framed the alternative as a worldview that is individualistic and cerebral. For example, Thomas Paine stated, “My mind is my church.” What’s so significant about Pastafarianism is that it’s taken atheistic philosophy and infused it with collective meaning in the form of rites and symbols. The image of FSM now appears on car bumpers, necklaces, and as street graffiti.
In addition to Skepticon, Pastafarians have also created International Talk Like a Pirate Day, Pastover, and Ramendon. For functionalists, it is irrelevant whether Pastafarians sincerely believe in their noodly deity. This shared body of symbols and practices has spawned an esprit de corps, uniting philosophical atheists and agnostics into a moral community, meaning that Pastafarianism may well be on its way to becoming a religion—in both the substantive and the functional sense.

The Dharma of Instincts and Skandhas

2011-08-14T15:28:00.000-07:00

One person shared a story about feeling compelled to throw a rock at a squirell on a tree and feeling ashamed when the rock actually hit the squirrell. Another person replied:

The simplest explanation is that you were born with a hunting instinct. You certainly weren't the first kid to do this.

The simplest explanation is usually simplistic. Every person is born with every instinct. But as I read the original story there wasn't any hunting goinng on there.

In the context of psychological motivations, from the perspective of Analytical Psychology there are five primary instincts:

(1) hunger (feeding)

(2) sex (reproduction)
(3) action (fight, aggression, progression)
(4) reflection (flight, reflex, regression, digression)
(5) creativity (construction, imagination)

All five are necessary for and result in our survival, though they can be viewed in a hierarchy of neediness, sense of demand, or biological imperative in terms of our survival. Most of our behaviors show a combination of instincts, and it is very rare for an act to be solely influenced by only one instinct. For example, "hunting" is a combination of the hunger, action-aggression, and creativity instincts. When one instinct predominates in a manner that suppresses the others our behavior becomes obsessive or addictive.

The instincts are the physical "muscle" or "force" that powers the psychic structure that culminates in consciousness, which in Buddhism is called the Five Skandhas. As such they are inchoate in the First Skandha called "Form" and become more differentiated and coherent in our awareness as they are embodied in the mental "structures" or inherent patterns of personality of the other skandhas.

From another perspective, each of the five instincts is the physical analog of the 5 Skandhas so that Form is analogous to feeding, Sensation is analogous to sex, Perception is analogous to aggression, Mental Formations is analogous to reflection and Consciousness is analogous to creativity. That is, in each skandha the corresponding instinct becomes the dominant influence. In the same way that the instincts do not operate alone, none of the skandhas functions in a vacuum without the presence and activity of the other skandhas. However, at any one time there is usually a dominant instinct and skandha active, so that sometimes the dominance is only a just noticeable difference and at other times the dominance is overwhelming in awareness and obscures the actual ongoing presence and activity of the others.

The reflective instinct is the key to creativity just as the 4th Skandha is the threshold to the 5th Skandha of consciousness. The reflective instinct is the source of our self consciousness and comes out most primitively in the flight response when we feel the overwhelming need for self protection, as a flight response is the "bending back" (re-flexis) from the perceived danger. Reflection is also the source of our self-awareness or self-consciousness as it functions to bend back awareness to create (i.e., in conjunction with the fifth instinct) the image of our "self" in the first place.

This bending back manifests in the mutual reflectivity of the Sixth and Seventh Consciousnesses, first to create the self-image which at first becomes enchanted with externalities and then, when ripened, there is the turning back (paravritti) of awareness itself from the glamour of objects to see through the subjectivity of the self-image to the treasure at the source of our awareness. As Zen Master Dogen said, we are usually reaching out to or advancing toward objects to confirm them on the basis of our "self," and this is the natural delusion that is technically called the Seventh Consciousness attending to externals. When the turning around or bending back (paravritti) of awareness occurs it takes place in the deepest part of our consciousness called the Eighth Consciousness or Storehouse or Treasury (alaya) Consciousness. Then the myriad things are no longer objectified as being confirmed by the self-image but their sensory data-stream returns to the source in the alaya and awareness perceives its own oneness in what Dogen calls satori.

Here’s how D.T. Suzuki describes it:

The Manas is a double-headed monster, the one face looks towards the Alaya and the other towards the Vijnanas. He does not understand what the Alaya really is. Discrimination being one of his fundamental functions, he sees multitudinousness there and clings to it as final. The clinging now binds him to a world of particulars. Thus, desire is mother, and ignorance is father, and this existence takes its rise. But the Manas is also a double-edged sword. When there takes place a "turning-back" (paravritti) in it, the entire arrangement of things in the Vijnanakaya or Citta-kalapa changes. With one swing of the sword the pluralities are cut asunder and the Alaya is seen in its native form (svalakshana), that is, as solitary reality (viviktadharma), which is from the first beyond discrimination. The Manas is not of course an independent worker, it is always depending on the Alaya, without which it has no reason of being itself; but at the same time the Alaya is also depending on the Manas. The Alaya is absolutely one, but this oneness gains significance only when it is realised by the Manas and recognised as its own supporter (alamba). This relationship is altogether too subtle to be perceived by ordinary minds that are found choked with defilements and false ideas since beginningless time.

Zen Master Hui Hai, The Great Pearl, when describing the many names for formless Mind said,

As the Suchness to which all phenomena ultimately return, it is called ‘the Tathagata Treasury’.

Understanding this complexity of the phenomena of mind in its functioning of the instincts and skandhas is not for the purpose of better understanding but for the purpose of not attaching to understanding. The one supreme Buddha vehicle of sudden direct awakening that does not rely on understanding leaps over the dull and sharp understandings of ordinary people and sages to see one’s own nature.

The Man in the Moon

2011-08-13T14:34:00.000-07:00

A poem for the full moon of August 12, 2011.

The Man in the Moon

Zen Master Hui Hai, known far and wide as “The Great Pearl,” said,
“The moon is reflected in that deep pond, catch it if you like.”

Reaching to grasp the moon in the pond,
Stirring the ripples and making 10,000 more reflections,
and still coming up empty handed.
Reaching for “not-reaching” stirs up reflections on reflections.

Throwing our life into it
Falling head over heels into the pond,
Sooner or later we discover with a great laugh
The one who is facing the pool.

Isn’t this like Paul Simon singing,

“I have reason to believe

that we all will be received

in Graceland”?

Thoughts on the Surangama Sutra

2011-08-06T13:23:00.000-07:00

Here are some thoughts stimulated by a discussion at Zen Forum International regarding the Surangama Sutra (also spelled Shurangama Sutra). There are three English versions easily available on the internet. The translation by Lu K'uan Yu (Charles Luk) is in PDF format here. Another translation is here but the translator is not attributed. And the Buddhist Text Translation Society index to their PDF version is here.

Someone commented:

While the Shurangama Sutra has many beautiful and valuable parts ... several important sections of the Shurangama Sutra are so questionable that, if the Buddha really did say such things ([i]fortunately, with our modern appreciation of history and text origins we can be pretty darn sure that he didn't[/i]) then the Buddha comes across perhaps as a fool.

I had a strong reaction to those comments. I don't read the section discussing the "inside the room" analogy as foolish, silly, or as something Buddha wouldn't have said. That section falls right in the middle of what "teaching by expedient means" is all about! Such "proof by analogy" is one of the entirely accepted and traditional forms of Indian logic which was the context of Buddha's dialogue.

Another comment was,

In other words, a man "in a room" can see what is outside the windows of the room AND (in front of that) the objects and people in the room ... but we cannot see the inside of the body (heart, liver, spleen, etc.) so the mind cannot be in the body. In modern terms, the mind cannot see the brain, so we can assert that the mind is not in the brain.

Assuming (as I and most Buddhists do in one fashion or another) that "mind" is not something limited to within the body or brain, it is nonetheless simply silly to argue that the mind in not located there, in whole or part, because it cannot see the inside of the brain, let alone the spleen!

To understand what Buddha is saying here, one needs to investigate the phrase “the mind is not located there” or as the Sutra says “If you cannot perceive what is inside at all, how can you perceive what is outside?”

Buddha is using the Socratic Method to bring Ananda around to understanding the egolessness of mind. That as the Diamond Cutter Sutra says, the mind abides nowhere. This first step in the teaching is in direct response to Ananda saying he believed his mind was inside his body. The Buddha taught the analogy that without an “outside” there is nothing to perceive at all and therefore there is no mind that can be mentioned, and likewise if the mind were inside it would perceive itself before it perceived anything outside. since there is no perception at all, and therefore no mind at all until there is the perception of an outside, it follows that the mind is not inside. There is nothing faulty with this logic, that is, at least nothing faulty as far as logic goes.

Ananda is following along with this logic and therefore Ananda says, “Upon hearing such a Dharma-sound as the Tathagata has proclaimed, I realize that my mind is actually outside my body.” So then the Buddha has to teach Ananda that the mind is not “outside” the body either. As Ananda accepts the dialectic that the mind in not outside the dialogue continues

The Surangama Sutra says:

Ananda said to the Buddha, “World Honored One, it is as the Buddha has said, since I cannot see inside, my mind does not reside in the body. Since my body and mind have a common awareness, they are not separate and so my mind does not dwell outside my body. As I now consider it, I know it is in a certain place.”

The Buddha said, “Now where is it?”

Ananda said, “Since the mind which knows and understands does not perceive what is inside but can see outside, upon reflection I believe it is concealed in the organ of vision.

So of course the next section is Buddha leading Ananda to see the mind is not “concealed” in the organ of vision. This dialogue may be very plain or pedestrian, but it is definitely not foolish or silly. This is just the most traditional type of logic there is, as the Buddha goes from teaching that the mind is not located inside the body and not located outside the body. This is a style of teaching using dialogue and very simple analogy that is very appropriate for certain people. There are people who actually think this way. Buddha teaches all people, not just those who are sophisticated. Of course this style is not appropriate for some other people, and for them there are other expedient styles of teaching, such as analytical discussions of the 12-linked chain of interdependent origination, the 12 entrances (ayatanas) and the 18 realms (dhatus). In fact in this section the Surangama is making this exact analysis only it is not using the analytical jargon that turns off some people. In other sections of the Surangama there is more use of the jargon, such as discussion of the Five Skandhas. There is also a very cosmically expansive jargon such as found in the Lotus Sutra with celestial Buddha Halls and cosmic Buddhas. There are koans that take up each of these styles and points as well.

Each Sutra is a teaching for a specific audience with a more than less specific direction of purpose to what is being expounded as the way to bring that particular audience “across to the other shore,” which in Zen we call direct realization of our own true nature.

Let’s not forget the analogy that Buddha uses to explain the relation of the One Mind to the six senses using the one piece of cloth tied into six knots.

The Surangama Sutra Says:

The Buddha told Ananda, "You know that this precious cloth is basically one strip, but when I made six ties in it, you said it had six knots. Carefully consider the substance of the cloth: it remains unchanged except for the knots in it. "What do you think? You identified the first knot I tied as number one. Now I am ready to tie the sixth knot. Will you also call it number one?" "No, World Honored One. If there are six knots, the sixth knot can never be called the first one. Even if I exhausted all my intelligence and eloquence in life after life, I could reverse the sequence of these six knots.

The Buddha said, "So it is. The six knots are not identical. Consider their origin: they are created from the one cloth and were tied in a certain order. It would be impossible to scramble that sequence. Your six sense organs are also like that. From what was identical, decisive differences arise." The Buddha said to Ananda, "Assuming you did not want these six knots and would like there to be just one cloth, how could you achieve that end?"

Ananda said, "As long as these knots remain, dispute about what they are and what they are not will arise. Their very existence will lead to such distinctions as this knot not being that knot and that knot not being this one. But if the Tathagata were to untie them all right now, so that none remained, then there would be no ‘this’ or ‘that.’ There would not even be anything called ‘one,’ how much the less ‘six.’"

The Buddha said, "That is also what happens when the six sense organs are freed: even the one is gone. Because from beginningless time your mind and nature have been insane and disturbed, you have created false knowledge and views. As that falseness continues to arise without respite, perception becomes weary and defilements arise. Just like the whirling flowers that appeared when the eyes grew tired of staring, these too are disturbances that arise without a cause within the tranquil, essential brightness. Everything in the world-the mountains, the rivers, the earth itself, as well as birth, death, and Nirvana-is these flowers that appear because of our being turned upside-down by insanity and weariness."

It is difficult to present in a few words the vast profundity of the Surangama Sutra. It covers the entire spectrum of Buddha Dharma with direct and plain analogies and emphasizes that no amount of intellection or thinking about the Dharma is sufficient, but that only in the practice of samadhi and untying the knots can we truly experience liberation for ourselves. Buddha teaches that the source of ignorance lies in these six knots and also that the source of enlightenment lies in these six knots!

Another comment was:

Perhaps my favorite section of the Sutra on the "bizarre" scale is the many pages discussing the very important topic of 'THE THREE GRADUAL STEPS TO ERADICATE THE FUNDAMENTAL SOURCES OF DISORDERED MENTAL ACTIVITY" Going up the list, "No. 3" is avoiding intentional engagement with sexual and other perceived objects, and "No. 2" is compliance with the Precepts and other fundamental rules of behavior.

But, WHAT IS THE NO. 1 STEP??

Avoiding onions, of course!

The reference is to this part of The Surangama Sutra (in Lu K'an Yu's version).

‘Ananda, all beings live if they eat wholesome food and die if they take poison. In their search for Samàdhi, they should abstain from eating five kinds of pungent roots (i.e. garlic, the three kinds of onions and leeks); if eaten cooked, they are aphrodisiac and if raw, they cause irritability. Although those who eat them may read the twelve divisions of the Mahàyàna canon, they drive away seers (çùi) in the ten directions who abhor the bad odour, and attract hungry ghosts who lick their lips. They are always surrounded by ghosts, and their good fortune will fade away day by day to their own detriment.

Now, all this business about the five kinds of pungent roots, such as onions, garlic, etc., and ghosts is nothing to laugh about derisively. As it should be clear from the outset, the Surangama is a Sutra intended to speak to people who are caught up in sexual intoxication and sexual addiction and it uses the devise of portraying even Ananda as being susceptible so such intoxication. It speaks to people saying, “Hey, if even Ananda got caught up in that, then you are not such a bad person after all.” Why would that be necessary? Because people caught in addictions always have a very very low self-esteem and at some level think of themselves as undeserving worthless scum fallen to the gutter of life. With this in mind there is little help to get out of the addictive cycle. So here comes a Buddhist Sutra that recognizes the problem and even puts the Buddha’s cousin and “right-hand man” Ananda into the same boat as them! This is wonderful! The sex addict can say, “If Ananda is also like this then I too have a chance.”

Another very important aspect of this Sutra is the recognition that sex addiction goes along with a general feeling of fearfulness towards life. This is why the Bodhisattvas in the Surangama talk about the use of mantras to protect against fear and the feelings of fearfulness. When we have a basic instinct of fear toward life we are most susceptible to addictions. We are afraid of our own feelings and use whatever the addictive channel is to ward off these very palpable feelings of fear and anxiety by getting our next “fix” to make us feel “normal” because we don’t accept the feelings of fear and anxiety as being normal.

Addiction and fear is what the teaching of the Surangama is centered upon. If anyone can’t relate to having an addiction and the underlying fear of life that the addiction is based upon, then I advise just passing by the Surangama. But if you have ever had or still have an addiction and feel helpless and fearful of ever kicking the habit, then the Surangama might just be the ticket to cross to the other side of gutter.

The medicine offered by the Surangama is to untie the knot of ignorance that is manifested in the knots of the six senses by the practice of samadhi to investigate the knot directly. The Sutra acknowledges that the fears that are being undone by the practice of samadhi will arise as “demons” who want to protect their positions in relation to the knots of the six senses and that there are clans or classes of demons that are associated with each of the Five Skandhas.

So, what about the onions? This is what is called a “sky hook.” in a children’s fable:.

Once upon a time there was a little duckling who was afraid of the water because he believed he couldn’t swim. Nothing his mother or brothers and sisters could say was able to get him to enter the water. He himself was very saddened by his condition and just felt like a misfit or mutant duck who didn’t know how to swim. His father returned from a long trip and was told about the problem and talked with his son. He told his son that deep in the woods was a wise old owl who would have the answer to his problem but that it was a perilous journey to get there.

The duckling son rose to the challenge and set off. Having many mishaps and near misses with catastrophe in the guise of foxes and other creatures, the young duckling finally arrived at the ancient tree where the wise old owl lived. He told the owl his whole story, and the owl said he had just what the duckling needed. The owl told the duck to break off a limb of that very tree that had a branching fork in it near the base. When the limb was then held upside down, the branching sides with one long and the other short was like a hook. The owl called this a sky hook and assured the young duckling that if he used the sky hook to hook into the sky and hold onto it when he went into the water that he would not sink and could assuredly swim.

The duckling was filled with joy and rushed home excitedly. He ran straight into the water holding up his sky hook and miraculously he could swim! Of course people made fun of him swimming around with his sky hook, but he didn’t care because now he could swim just like all the other ducks.

One day he was lounging on the shore with his sky hook beside him when he heard someone screaming. He rushed to see who it was and it was his favorite girlfriend duckling who was caught in the strong currents and being pulled toward the waterfall to her death. No other ducks were close enough to help her except for him. Not caring about his own safety he dove into the water to her side and pulled her to the shore on the other side of the river. After he had done so the other ducks had arrived and began shouting at him and pointing across the river. At first he couldn’t tell what they were shouting about but then it became clear. In his urgency to save his friend he had left his sky hook on the other side of the river and there it was laying on the shore where he had left it. After that, of course, he never needed his sky hook again.

People caught up in addiction have a belief at the core of their self-identity that they just can’t change. It’s no joke to them. They know from their own experience what it is to live in a world surrounded by ghosts and demons and no amount of mere words will convince them otherwise. To this end the Buddha teaches the renunciation of the five pungent roots.

To a person who is bound by their sexual addiction and who believes they can never be free of their sexual lusts, this is the perfect sky hook. If they can learn to live by giving up these tasty spicy plants, then they can learn to live unfettered by sexual lust. Giving up onions, garlic, and the rest with the belief that these plants stimulate sexual lust is a great way to focus the mind so the person can swim without being tormented by sexual lust. In other words the person can demonstrate to themselves, “If I can give up these five pungent roots, then I can also give up being a slave to my desires.”

It’s very similar to the teaching of the Buddha to the woman who wanted him to bring her dead child back to life. He didn’t just say, “Sorry it can’t be done.” Those words would never be efficacious to a person in her condition of distraction. Instead he told her he would bring the dead child back to life if she brought a mustard seed from a household that had never had a death in the family. Wasn’t that too a silly and foolish thing to say? Of course it was if said to a rational person who was not distraught with her dear child in her arms. Similarly, the teaching about abstaining from onions is not for everyone. It is for people who are addicted to sex, and by extrapolation generally to anyone addicted to any of the desires of the senses, to show them a way to embody the discipline needed to begin the practice of samadhi.

It has to be taught as if it were absolute truth because that is what makes a sky hook effective. If we are told, “I’m just telling you don’t eat onions because it is a trick to get you to focus your body on samadhi,” who would that work on? I would suggest it would be next to useless just as if Buddha told the woman holding her dead child, “Oh I’m giving you this task because you are so disturbed I have to get your attention.” That would destroy the actual embodiment of the learning. The woman going around from house to house looking for a household not touched by death was embodying her samadhi practice in her single focused attention on her “koan.” Likewise, for people who are addicted to the senses and especial to the addiction of the bodily sense of sexuality, abstention from onions becomes a koan-like focus for our self-image as embodied persons.

Lasly, for those who might read Master Hsuan Hua’s comments and be surprize by their literalness, I suggest that they should be taken with a good dose of salt. He is speaking as a Dharma Master, not as a Zen Master. He is not talking to Zen students, but to people who never heard of Zen. He is talking to people who live with the presence of ghosts and demons as a normal part of their everyday lives.

The Ten Stages of Awakening

2011-08-04T23:36:00.000-07:00

Here's a table of comparison between three early models of the Ten Stages of Awakening. We don't know how much cross reference there is between them. The 10 Bodhisattva Stages from the Avatamsaka Sutra are the earliest. Zongmi obviously read the Avatamsaka Sutra and was extremely well versed in it but did not adopt it's model of 10 stages verbatim and instead used the famous "Discourse on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana" as his template for the 10 levels of awakening. The 10 Oxherding pictures have had several versions and I'm using here one of the later versions. I've never herd a solid story about how the 10 Oxherding Pictures developed, but I have seen an earlier version that came from India using an elephant rather than an ox.

The fourth column is my own version of the 10 stages in terms of the functioning of the Eight Consciousnesses and the well know association of the transformation of the Eight Consciousnesses into the Four Wisdoms that have been described in Zen since Huineng in the beginning of the 8th century.

	Zongmi’s 10 Levels of Awakening	10 Ox Herding Pictures	10 Bodhisattva Stages (*bhūmi)*	My View of the 10 Stages In Terms of the Eight Consciousnesses and Five Ranks
1	Awakening of Faith in One’s Own Suchness and the Three Jewels	Searching for the Ox	*the Very Joyous.* (Skt. Paramudita), in which one rejoices at realizing a partial aspect of the truth;	After years of wandering in the weeds and woods Awareness feels the intimations of the 8th Consciousness and begins to seek its own source.
2	Resolving to Attain Awakening by Generating Compassion, Wisdom and Vows	Seeing the Footprints	*the Stainless.* (Skt. Vimala), in which one is free from all defilement;	Awareness begins to turn around from enchantment with the 10,000 things of the 1st to 6th Consciousnesses and to investigate their images as reflected in the 7^th Consciousness
3	Cultivating the Five Gates to Make the Root of Faith Grow (i.e., the Five Paramitas with the fifth being samatha-vipassayna combined)	Seeing the Ox	*the Luminous.* (Skt. Prabhakari), in which one radiates the light of wisdom;	Peeking through the veil of the 7^th Consciousness, Awareness becomes certain of the 8^th Consciousness and begins releasing its fixed grip on the 1^st to 5^th Consciousnesses
4	Arising of Great Bodhicitta	Getting the Ox	*the Radiant.* (Skt. Archishmati), in which the radiant flame of wisdom burns away earthly desires;	Awareness fully lets go of grasping at the 1^st to 5^th Consciousnesses and begins to release its grip on the 6^th Cons. to flow through the 7^th Consciousness into the 8^th Consciousness
5	Overcoming the Six Afflictions and Seeing Self is empty.	Herding the Ox	*the Difficult to Cultivate.* (Skt. Sudurjaya), in which one surmounts the illusions of darkness, or ignorance as the Middle Way;	Awareness Having Let Go of all attachment to the 6^th Consciousness passes through the Veil of the 7^th Consciousness to enter the 8^th Consciousness
6	Flowing in the Practice of the Six Perfections (the Six Paramitas with 5 and 6 being Dhyana and Prajna) Self and Dharmas both empty, eternally void eternally like an illusion.	Riding the Ox Home	*the Manifest.* (Skt. Abhimukhi) in which supreme wisdom begins to manifest;	Awareness Having let go of all attachment to the 7^th Consciousness and fully returned to the 8^th Cons., the 8^th Cons. Transforms into the Great Mirror Wisdom
7	Mastery Over Forms, Everything in Fusion, All Arises From Discrimination of One’s Own Mind	Forgetting the Ox, the Person Resting	*the Gone Afar.* (Skt. Duramgama), in which one rises above the states of the Two vehicles;	Awareness arising through the Great Mirror Wisdom Transforms the 7^th Consciousness into the Equality Wisdom
8	Mastery Over Mind, Nothing That is Not Illuminated	Person and Ox Both Forgotten	*the Immovable.* (Skt. Achala), in which one dwells firmly in the truth of the Middle Way and cannot be perturbed by anything;	Awareness arising through the Equality Wisdom Transforms the 6^th Consciousness into the All Observing Wisdom
9	Free From Thoughts Cultivating No-thought, Awakened to the Origin of Delusion & So Full of Teaching Devices	Returning to the Source	*the Good Intelligence.* (Skt. Sadhumati), in which one preaches the Law freely and without restriction;	Awareness arising through the All Observing Wisdom Transforms the 1^st to 5^th Consciousnesses into the All Performing Wisdom
10	There is One Awakening With Limitless Responsive Functioning in the Constantly Abiding Dharma Realm, Seeing All Beings Attaining Perfect Awakening	Returning to the Marketplace With Helping Hands	*the Cloud of Dharma.* (Skt. Dharmamegha), in which one benefits all sentient beings with the Law (Dharma), just as a cloud sends down rain impartially on all things.	Awareness Blossoms in Full Awakening and Mutual Integration of the Four Wisdoms

Buddhist Faith in "The Sutra of Queen Srimila's Lion's Roar"

2011-08-03T16:57:00.000-07:00

Here's a section from the THE SUTRA OF QUEEN ŚRĪMĀLĀ’S LION’S ROAR WHEREIN IS ARTICULATED SEVERANCE OF ALL DOUBTS, CERTAINTY OF THE COMPLETE MEANING, AND ENTRANCE TO THE WAY OF THE ONE VEHICLE. That's the longest title. The shortest title is "SRIMALA SUTRA," and in between are such titles as "QUEEN SRIMALA’S LION’S ROAR SUTRA" Gunabradha's Chinese translation of the title is "THE SUTRA OF THE COMPREHENSIVE GREAT SKILLFUL MEANS OF THE ONE VEHICLE OF ŚRĪMĀLĀ’S LION’S ROAR."

The translation is my own. This comes from the section relating to the topic of "Articulating the Tathagata’s True Children."

Here the Buddha is speaking to Queen Srimila after approving her previous declarations of the Dharma, and he is distinguishing what makes a person a "true child of the Tathagata." In this exerpt, the World Honored One articulates how faith makes us a true child of the Thathagata.

“If my followers follow with the faith that is most superior, then based on their bright faith they already accord with the innate-intelligence of the Dharma and then attain the ultimate. That which accords with the innate-intelligence of the Dharma (1) investigates the establishment of the field of liberation of the intellect and faculties of sense; (2) investigates karmic retribution; (3) investigates the eye of the Arhat [i.e., the wisdom (prajna) eye seeing the emptiness of all dharmas]; (4) investigates joy of the mind’s autonomy and the joy of meditation (zen); and (5) investigates the noble autonomy and fluency of the Arhats, Independent Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of great power.

“With these five kinds of expedient contemplations accomplished, from within future worlds to come after my nirvana, were my followers, who follow with the faith that is most superior based on their bright faith in accord with the innate-intelligence of the Dharma, to have the pure mind of their own nature there become contaminated by afflictions, yet they would attain the ultimate. Indeed that which is the ultimate is the cause of entering the Way of the Great Vehicle. With that which is faith in the Tathagata there exists great efficacy that does not slander the profound meaning.”

The 10 Stages of Delusion That Go With the 10 Stages of Awakening

2011-07-31T17:16:00.000-07:00

In Zen, the stages of awakening are known popularliy through the collection known as the "10 Oxherding Pictures." The 10 Oxherding pictures represent the natural stages of human consciousness finding its way back from delusion about its true condition to direct awareness of its true condition. There are various versions of the pictures, some with an elephant instead of an ox or water buffalo, some that have the stages identified differently (one 10-stage version ends with the empty circle and another 10-stage version has the empty circle as the 8th stage and ends with the 10th stage of "returning to the market place"), and there is an early version with only 8 stages ending in the empty circle.

If you are alert, you will have immediately noticed that there is a flip side to these stages that represents the original development which arrives in the condition of delusion where the 10 Oxherding pictures begin. And guess what? That side too has 10 stages, but they are very seldom discussed these days. Fortunately, Zen Master Guifeng Zongmi has already discussed them in several of his works from the 9th Century.

We don't need to get too worked up over the exact number of the stages or levels. The development is fluid and trying to define the boundaries between the stages is like trying to say on which day a child become a teen and a teen become an adult and exactly how many stages of human development are there from birth to death. Some of it is generally obvious and some of it generally obscure. Still, I think we can have a general consensus about the fact of human development and likewise we can approach the development of awakening with the same attitude of only requiring a general consensus of 10 stages, while remembering that having any consensus at all is useless if we don’t personally go through those stages in our own life.

In his preeminent work “Introduction to Zen” (also known as “Ch’an Preface" or "Chan Prolegomenon") written around 830, Zongmi presented his reciprocal stages of 10 each from Root Enlightenment to delusion and then from delusion to Buddhahood and Sudden or Immediate Enlightenment. Zongmi based his scheme on the widely known and esteemed “Discourse on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana.” It seems likely that Chinese Zen masters who adapted the 8 stages of the early Ox Herding pictures into the 10 stages format had either read Zongmi’s work or had been inspired in the same way as he had been by the “Awakening of Faith.”

Zongmi described the arising of delusion in 10 stages as the process of becoming a common or ordinary person, which I paraphrase, and to whiich I add the refrences to the Eight Consciousnesses and Five Skandhas, as follows.

1. All beings possess the true mind of root awakening. From our perspective of delusion this is called the Eighth Consciousness, i.e., the Storehouse Consciousness (alayavijnana) or (citta), while from the perspective of awakening it is the true suchness.

2. When the mind moves it moves in its sleep of non-awakening or unenlightenment. It moves in the dark so to speak as there is no reflection or spark of light. Out of the root of unity comes the separation of duality as a silent still string begins to vibrate with the first wave, but there is no self-awareness of the sound as yet. This is the stirring of the 8th Consciousness giving rise to the Seventh Consciousness, i.e., the Aware or Reflective Intelligence (manas), also called the Obscuring Ideation Consciousness (or Afflicted Ideation Consciousness) (klistamanovijnana) as it is the activity of discriminations.

3. Thoughts then arise as a result of the movement in the dark. This is like the light separating from the dark or the sound of the plucked string now vibrating the air surrounding it. This is the active functioning of the 7th Consciousness giving rise to the Sixth Consciousness, i.e., the Rational, Cognitive, or Ideation Consciousness (manovijnana).

4. The first intimations of a self-image appear as thoughts in their nascent or initial reflective function. Thoughts become aware (this is, awareness become condensed into thought) and its first activity is to be aware of the true mind of its own root awakening but through the filter of unenlightened activity that separates all awareness into the polarized duality of wave formations. Thus the first reflective sense of thought is to bifurcate itself and imagine itself as a “seer” or subject peering into the darkness of reality. This is the activity of the 6th Consciousness reflecting back on the 7th Consciousness.

5. From the position of a supposed “seer”, all things of awareness become sorted into the two categories of the “seer” and the “seen” and the so-called objective world of perceived objects appears. This is the 6th Consciousness stirring and reflecting on the Five Consciousnesses of the seen, heard, smelled, tasted, and touched.

6. Unaware that the appearance of objects seen of the 5 Consciousnesses has arisen from the thinking and polarizing activity of the our own mind (i.e, the 6th, 7th , & 8th Consciousnesses) we develop desires and aversions toward these imagined objects based on our constructed self-image embedded in our thinking process. This is the 6th Consciousness grasping at the 1st to 5th Consciousnesses as things of real existence.

7. Unaware that this grasping at and rejection of objects is based on our unconscious self-image, our framework of distinctions between subject and objects becomes fixated and aggrandizes the subject giving rise to an orientation to reality that is self-grasping or egocentric and called attachment to self. This is the activity of the 6th Consciousness discriminating every thing within the 1st to 5th Consciousness in reference to the constructed image seen by reflection in the 7th Consciousness.

8. Based on the intrinsic interactivity of our self-image, attachment to objects and attachment to self we then manifest an active relationship to all things within awareness and fall into clinging to our body of four elements (First Skandha) as our physical self, and fixating our attitudes of feelings and perceptions (Second and Third Skandhas) into polarized frames of reference that bring all things (dharmas) into its field. This activity of this polarized field is called the activity of the Three Poisons and the world of afflictions. Our 6th Consciousnesses relates to all things in light of its consciousness being colored by these three: desiring and loving, hating and despising, and the ignorance of confusion and delusion.

9. From this fixation of the first three Skandhas, the Fourth Skandha of mental configurations becomes fixated and our 6th Consciousness acts with a sense of relation to a solid self, which is actually a misidentification of the true mind of root awakening. On the basis of these mental configurations formed by the three poisons into the building blocks of our fixed identity that then molds and characterizes our sense of volition and intention, our actions (karma) arise to generate consequential light and dark results, that is, results that our identity structure categorizes as “good or bad” karma, “beneficial or unbeneficial” karma.

10. Once the karma-activity arises it follows its natural and determined course (in what we could call the gravity-well of Dharma), and we experience the consequences accordingly. The consequences of our karma-activity are inescapable from this stage, and they become manifested within the spectrum of the six frames of reference that are called the six paths of the wheel of birth and death, i.e., hellish, hungrily haunted, bestial, human, titanic, or heavenly.

The reciprocal path from this 10th stage of ordinary delusion (“all the world’s a stage”) to awakening is what is pictured in the 10 Ox-herding pictures.

A Song for a Sweet Saturday Morning (or some other time)

2011-07-30T08:48:00.000-07:00

This is one of my Top 10 originals on YouTube. It is an exceptional acoustic version of Jimi Hendrix's song 1983 (A merman I should turn to be). The only problem with it is that it ends abruptly.

Here's the link 1983 (A merman I should turn to be)

Here are the lyrics for those who don't know the song.

Hurray I awake from yesterday
Alive but the war is here to stay
So my love catherina and me
Decide to take our last walk thru the noise to the sea
Not to die but to be reborn
Away from the lands so battred and torn
Forever forever

Oh say can you see it's really such a mess
Every inch of earth is a fighting nest
Giant pencil and lipstick-tube shaped things
Continue to rain and cause screamin' pain
And the arctic stains from silver blue to bloody red
As our feet find the sand
And the sea is straight ahad
Straight up ahead

Well it's too bad that our friends can't be with us today
Well it's too bad
The machine that we built
Would never save us that's what they say
That's why they ain't comin' with us today
And they also said it's impossible
For a man to live and breathe undrerwater
Forever was a main complaint
Yeah and they also threw this in my face they said
Anyway you know good and well
It would be beyond the will of god
And the grace of the king
Grace of the king
Yeah

Ooo

So my darling and I make love in the sand
To salute the last moment ever on dry land
Our machine it has done it's work played it's part well
Without a scratch on our body when we bid it farewell
Starfish and giant foams greet us with a smile
Before our heads go under we take our last look at the killing noise
Of the out of style
The out of style out of style oh yeah
Oooo

So down and down and down and down we go
Hurry my darlin' we mustn't be late
For the show
Neptune champion games to an aqua world is so my dear
Right this way smiles a mermaid
I can hear atlantis full of cheer
Atlantis full of cheer
I can hear atlantis full of cheer
Oh yeah

Enjoy.

Householder Zen Lineages

2011-07-23T11:06:00.000-07:00

I recently had my attention drawn to a blog at the Wild Fox Zen blog titled "What the Heck is a Zen Priest?" that was written just about a year ago. The topic is one that will remain current for many years to come as it is about the development of Zen in the West and the role of Zen priests or monastics in the transplantation of Zen to the West.

Here are some thoughts that blog has stimulated.

In Siddhartha Gotama's time the priests, known as Brahmins, were part of the ruling class structure that Siddhartha the Buddha walked away from. The Buddha Dharma was about stepping outside the caste structure and its hierarchy. Buddha became a wandering mendicant called a “bhikkhu” or more politely a “sramana.” The samanas would congregate around well known teachers (sattha). Siddhartha Gotama studied under several satthas and especially with two such satthas of great renown. When two wandering sramanas met on the road, their customary greeting was not to ask “How are you?” but “Who is your Master (Sattha)?” “Whose Dharma do you find most agreeable to you?” or “What is the Dharma you have adopted?”

Thus there were no sects per se, but there were networks of followers of one Master (Sattha) or Dharma or another. The wandering almsmen (Pali bhikkhus, Sanskrit bhiksus) and women (bhikkhunis, bhiksunis) would follow a teacher as long as their Dharma was agreeable and if they found it lacking they could find another teacher whose Dharma was more agreeable. This was the same pattern that Siddhartha followed when he moved from teacher to teacher, Dharma to Dharma.

When Gotama became a Buddha and so became a teacher himself, he became known as a Great Master ([i]Mahasattha[/i]) and more and more wanderers found his Dharma to be most agreeable to them and so they formed a network of samanas around him.
To other sramanas outside of his Dharma, his followers were known as the “Sramanas of the Son of the Sakyas” (Sakyaputtiya Samanas), but the Buddha’s followers called themselves by the more simple name of the “Guild (or Union) of Bhikkhus” (the Bhikkhu sangha).

Thus the Buddha did not directly challenge the caste system but instead set up an alternative “system” based on the craftsmen-guild model called the sangha. At the time, the social culture and structure was that a craft sangha was allowed to police itself so that the members of the craft’s sangha would answer for wrongdoing to the craft sangha instead of to the public authorities. As long as the craft sangha showed a real system of laws of good conduct and enforcement of those laws, the sangha was allowed to have their own separate system of keeping their members in order without being subject to civil authority. By establishing his band of followers in the sangha model the Buddha was able to set his sramana followers apart outside the jurisdiction of the usual civil authorities.

It is interesting that this development of the sangha model led to the confusion between the followers of the Buddha Dharma (i.e, the greater sangha or mahasangha) and the Bhikkhu sangha. There were four recognized groups of the followers: the male bhikkhus and female bhikkhunis (collectively referred to with the male term bhikkhus as the inclusive) and the male and female householders. The Bhikkhu sangha had to be developed as a separate institution to provide the institutional protection and insulation from the civil authorities while the householder sangha continued under the jurisdiction of the civil government (regardless of whether the civil government was a monarchy or republic). However by developing its own institutional identity the Bhikkhu sangha then came to usurp the greater sangha and to call itself “The” sangha and relegated the role of the householder side of the greater sangha to the status of merely providing physical support for “The” sangha, i.e., the Bhikkhu sangha comprised of the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis.

So it is ironic that the Buddha Dharma in adopting the Bhikkhu sangha model in order to be free of civil laws and authority and the caste system had to establish its own internal laws and authority, and thus an internal system of hierarchy that was every bit as structured and rigid as the caste system. Of course the Buddha’s Bhikkhus sangha was patterned as a meritocratic seniority system rather than the inherited birthright caste system. The Bhikkhu sangha system with its two values of meritocracy and seniority has a built-in tension between the seniority rights and privileges of the members of the Bhikkhu sangha and the recognition of the meritocracy of a member’s personal awakening to the Buddha Dharma.

In our current societies, this irony is now represented by a priestly caste within the greater sangha in the same way. One response to this dilemma as it was recognized in Japan in the 20th century, was by Yatsutani Hakuun Roshi, who, with the blessing of his teacher Harada Sogaku Roshi, set up a Zen lineage outside the priestly caste system called the Sanbo Kyodan. One of the hallmarks of this new branch of the Zen lineage was that it was not controlled by the modern version of the Bhikkhu sangha found in the Japanese priest system but was to be a wing of the greater sangha that is “of, by, and for” the householder or so-called “lay” sangha. This was the creation of a householder sangha that recognized that the religious aspirations and realizations of householders was every bit the equal to those of the “ordained” when it comes to maintaining the true Buddha Dharma. In the Sanbo Kyodan Zen lineage the ideal is that teachers become recognized purely on the meritorious basis of their realization and ability to teach, not on their seniority as a priest or monastic.

This new Zen lineage was accepted widely in the West by and through the numerous authorization and certification of Westerners as Roshis (literally “old teachers”). Though in this process, some lineages, such as the Diamond Sangha stemming from Robert Aiken Roshi and others, became institutionally independent of the Sanbo Kyodan, all lineages stemming from the Sanbo Kyodan continue to maintain the practice of being a householder Zen lineage not dominated by a priest or bhikkhu class.

This does not mean that the new householder Zen lineage is inherently disparaging of the priest or bhikkhu sangha, but that there is an assertion of independent equality for householders. This independent but equal status was actualized by Yatsutani Roshi himself when, at the same time that he established the Sanbo Kyodan for housholder Zen, he continued to work with Zen priests such as Taizan Maezumi Roshi whom he certified (inka) as a lineage holder of his koan practice lineage.

Zen in the West is developing on these two separate but related tracks that have crisscrossed, that of the priest controlled lineages of traditional Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Chinese Zen and the lay or householder controlled lineages. In this new Western context, some of the priestly or bhikku ordained teachers or roshis of the most conservatively priest or monastic dominated Zen lineages have actually authorized lay or non-priest teachers within their lineages, such as Chan Master Sheng Yen who, prior to his death in 2009, had authorized both monastic and lay Dharma heirs.

In this continuing Western evolution of householder-centric Zen lineages alongside monastic- or priest-centered Zen lineages, how the two branches will grow in relation to each other and whether they become synergistic or competitive is yet to be determined. At the present time the competitive aspect of these two branches of Zen lineages is minimal, but given our human proclivity for discriminating the One Mind into sectarian competition, it remains to be seen whether the stress of developing resources and organizing students affects the continuing relationships between monastic-centered Zen and householder-centered Zen.

The Difference Over Israel Is Not A Difference Between Being Left Or Progressive.

2011-07-20T13:53:00.000-07:00

I agree with Michael A. Dover's comment on Portside that

"It is important to recognize that what is progressive at any one point in history is not necessarily what seems most 'left'."

Many progressives and leftists have never attempted to discern the differences arising from their common ground of honest concern for the welfare of humanity over the welfare of the wealthy.

So how do we tell the difference? In a pinch, a leftist is more concerned about being on the "left side" than anything else. Leftists have the highest regard for their ideological position as a shared value and base their sense of personal integrity on remaining true to the team's point of view. Any deviation from their leftist positioning is seen as betrayal of "Team Left." This sense of honor and faith to the collective base is what makes leftists feel pride in their sense of selflessness. The ideology as a determining factor is always set within a social context in which the consensus about what is left approach is the most important. This high value on the group also places great stress on the group's cohesion, and leads to the fracturing of group identity, such as the well known stereotype of Stalinists verses Trotskyites.

In the same pinch a progressive will ask, "In this situation what will lead to progress toward the betterment of the human situation?" This is a coherent ideal rather than a consistent ideology. As an ideal, the progressive is moved by a guiding star rather than a leftist's guidebook, so that individual's orientation to the situational betterment of the human condition is the central concern. The progressive's main concern is about progress toward betterment of the condition of the most (rather than the conservative's concern for the betterment of the condition for the "best" and the "fewest", i.e., themselves), but the progressive's group betterment goal is set within the personal value of letting people personally define how they are guided by their own star rather than a group consensus upon which constellation to follow. Of course, the downside for progressives is that group integration in a common strategy is weakened as each person is led by the sound of their own drummer when stepping toward progress. The images of herding cats or carrying frogs into a wheelbarrow are appropriate stereotypes for getting progressives to actually do practical political work.

So while leftists and progressives instantly see their shared value of working toward the betterment of the human condition for the widest number of humans possible, they often move away from each other when it comes to putting boots, loafers, sandals, sneakers, and high heels on the ground to march, walk, hike, jog, or stroll toward this goal.

How does this apply to the Israel-Palestine situation? The leftist will have a rule and apply it, and here the general rule is that oppression is always bad and must be aggressively opposed. However, when Israel is the case to which the rule is applied the team factor comes into play. For the mainstream Jewish Left and those who are their close friends, Israel in its very nature is a product of left thinking and the very existence of Israel is a continuing living example of the fight against oppression generally and the oppression of the Jews specifically. Any act that undermines Israel is therefore seen as an act against the left view that fights oppression. Any charge against Israel is discounted on the basis that Israel is protecting itself against the oppression of the attacks on its existence. Of course on the other hand, there is an International Left that reads the current facts as trumping the historical facts, and finds the current oppression of Palestinians by the Israel government and its forces to be just one more example of oppression by the powerful against the weak that now also must be diligently opposed. In this situation, the two versions of what is the true left position will be at odds while both claim to be on the left against oppression.

Similarly, progressives find themselves at odds over how to respond to Israel's behavior. Mainstream Jewish progressives and their close friends will argue that the hope for the betterment of the most people in the Middle East rests upon the continued existence of Israel as a neighborhood example of democracy and human rights. However, progressives with no personal attachment to Israel see the situation quite differently and say that there is no human argument that can condone the current oppression of the millions of Palestinians, and that the progressive thing to do to better the condition of the most in the Middle East is to clearly oppose Israel's oppression of the Palestinians. In this view, Israel is only a sham democracy and is running a con-game when it comes to protecting "human rights" as opposed to merely protecting the economic and military power of Israel.

From the perspective of this analysis, the main difference is not between the left and progressives as between those Jewish Left-Progressives (and their friends) who continue to equate Israel as the protector of Jewish identity as being against oppression and the rest of the left and progressives who see the government of Israel as the central betrayer of Jewish identity and values. I see no way to avoid this very unpleasant and inconvenient conclusion.

I identify my position as being a radical progressive of the kind that says the government of Israel has betrayed the core values against oppression. (Of course it is an open question of history whether or not those values were ever really in play on the ground as Israel was created by the forced ethnic cleansing as the USA was also created, but that is not the issue here.) The international ideal that legitimatized the creation of Israel by the UN was the simple value of protecting people from oppression. Israel has now clearly betrayed that value by oppressing the Palestinian people through collective punishment, committing social atrocities in the building of settlements, and other such oppressions. It is now time that Israel as a government and a nation either (1) guarantee that value against oppression equally for the Palestinians or (2) cease to have any continuing international legitimacy to exist.

Though the human mind has an infinite capacity to rationalize, I see no rationalization that can overcome the plain fact that Israel and the USA are not permitting the people in the Palestinian territories to exist as a sovereign nation.

Honestly, the Palestinians themselves have made a shambles of trying to work together for their freedom, but their inability to do so is understandable when it is seen in the context of their captivity (figuratively and concretely speaking) by Israel. When people are in prison and divided by their captors and guards, it is very difficult to work together effectively. This is why we see ethnic gangs in prisons fighting each other rather than working collectively against the guards and wardens, and it is precisely why the prison authorities keep the prison factionalism alive in order to prevent a concerted action by the inmates against their guards who are vastly outnumbered.

Ultimately, what the UN gave, the UN should be able to take away. UN Generral Assembly Resolution no. 181 of 1947, and subsequent related resolutions, put into effect the previous intent of the League of Nations when creating the "Mandate for Palestine" in 1922. UN Resolution no. 181 recognized that the Mandate of Palestine should be divided into two nations one as a Jewish State and one as an Arab State. The context for the Palestinian request for recognition as a nation and continuing implementation of Resolution no. 181 and its progeny, should be the inherent power of the UN to pass a resolution under its parliamentary plenary power to amend or even repeal its prior resolutions including No. 181. In other words, if Israel and the USA continue to oppose and thwart the recognition of a sovereign nation for the Palestinians and continue to violate Resolution no. 242 by military occupation and blockade, then Resolution no. 181 should be repealed and recognition of Israel should be removed.

I continue to believe that the Palestinians have the best chance for a common sovereignty if they recognize the separate statehood of Gaza and the West Bank and form a federal connection as the expression of their unity rather than attempting to establish a single state with a single government. The fact of their territorial separateness cannot be ignored and just as the different states of the USA allow for a certain amount of both local control and local experimentation, so too will separate states in a unified federal system allow the Palestinians to have the best of local organization and common identity and citizenship. So far, I have not heard of any practical steps in this direction, though I am admittedly a world away from hearing what the insiders are planning in Palestine. However, if they want to have world opinion on their side when the question of their sovereignty comes before the UN, then it would behoove them to have a very practical plan for their nationhood status to present in order to inspire confidence.

At a minimum, their "Outline for Nationhood" should include the following proposals of trust:

1. Declare that the new nation of Palestine will consist of two states of contiguous geographical integrity, i.e., the West Bank and Gaza, bound together in a federal unity.

2. Affirm that there will be a federal constitution defining the powers of the federal government, including issues of legislative, judicial, executive, monetary, military, diplomatic, citizenship, etc., and there will be separate state constitutions for the functioning of the two states within their federal unity.

3. Establish a general timeline for the creation of the constitutions.

4. Ratify the importance of human rights with a statement of commitment to the principles spelled out in the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights and promise that the new Palestinian nation will protect the human rights of its citizens regardless of ethnic or religious identity.

5. Recognize the six basic principles of democracy: (1) The people are sovereign; (2) The people exercise their sovereignty by the rule of law not individuals, cliques, or juntas; (3) The people govern by majority rule; (4) The majority rule is constitutionally limited by minority rights; (5) The governance structure has a separation of powers so that no one branch or government function has all the power; and (6) The governance system has checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power between or within the branches from becoming tyrannical. And that within these "ground rules" of democracy the people of Palestine will create their constitutions and government structure.

6. Affirm that the new nation of Palestine will accept and abide by the unanimously approved UN Security Council Resolution no. 242 of 1967, and affirm that as soon as Israel withdraws its armed forces from the occupied territories as referenced in Resolution no. 242 and ends the blockade of Gaza, then the provisional government of Palestine will officially recognize the territorial inviolability and political independence of Israel according to Resolution no. 242.

If the Hamas and Fatah political organizations can agree on an Outline for Nationhood with a provisional governmental authority, then as soon as they have that agreement, and without waiting for the UN vote of recognition, they should send out diplomatic envoys to all the nations of the world asking for individual diplomatic recognition of Palestinian sovereignty and the provisional government. France has already recognized the Provisional Transitional National Council of Libyan rebels as the rightful Libyan regime. A transitional government of Palestine would have a much greater justification for receiving recognition. By demonstrating their ability to function as a sovereign nation and seek diplomatic recognition on their own without prior approval, the Palestinians would create greater pressure on the UN as a body to officially recognize the nation of Palestine and provide the necessary assistance for the nation building that will be required after the devastation wrought by Israel.

Is There an Afterlife?

2011-07-06T09:35:00.000-07:00

This is a response to what was called a debate on the question "Is There an Afterlife?" Here's the blurb from the website

In this recent Whizin Center for Continuine Education program, leading advocates for atheism, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris square off against Newsweek top rabbis, David Wolpe and Bradley Artson Shavit to determine what may or may not happen in the hereafter.

The possibility of an afterlife has challenged believers and atheists alike for centuries. Because its very nature defies conclusive definitions or proof, it remains a heated topic for debate and exploration. This debate is moderated by the Editor-in-Chief of the Jewish Journal, Rob Eshman.

There is a bit of false advertising in the claim that this is a “debate” about the afterlife. It’s not. It’s a beating around the bush with all four speakers dodging the main question.

As a Buddhist I would say that none of the four speak of the afterlife in the terms that are relevant to me. They don’t seem to be speaking from experience, and instead all four are speaking about what they “trust” to be true by their intellectual speculation and dualistic modes of thinking.

In this debate, either the Rabbis didn't do their homework or they decided to stay on the defensive, as neither Rabbi directly challenges the bloodlust for the American Empire espoused by Hitchens and Harris in their written works. My guess is that there was some kind of pre-debate agreement that the Rabbis would not attack Hitchens and Harris directly and in exchange no one would mention how Israel is oppressing and killing people in the name of religion.

The dilemma of dealing with Hitchens and Harris is that they have their soft targets which they attack successfully and then they dodge away from the real issues and hard problems.

Hitchens rightly challenges the immature anthropomorphism and personification of a literal fantasy of God as a person with arms and legs and a long bearded “father” figure. That childish fantasy can be punctured but it doesn’t amount to anything.

Hitchens approaches intellectual honesty when he says, “Survival of consciousness independent of the brain is different from religious belief in a mandated path you can either follow or not follow for reward or punishment.” But if that is so, then he is acknowledging that he is avoiding the real subject of the former when he is attacking the misunderstandings of the latter.

Hitchens and Harris are essentially making a straw man argument by attacking institutional religion as if the religious aspiration in people is responsible for the conduct of the devils running the institution. If so, then that is also a great argument for abolishing democracy because of the devils running the USA today. The two rabbis David Wolpe and Bradley Artson Shavit apparently are not in a position to talk about the abuses, torture, and holocaust committed by our government in the name of democracy, since, as stated above, it might also lead to a discussion of the abuses committed by Israel. The problem of bastards and bullies running the government is a human problem that has nothing to do with whether the institution that controls the government is called democracy, communism, or the church.

Rabbi Shavit is right to point out the “worst compared to best” style of argument used by Hitchens is a rhetorical trick. With the comment that people “hold on to hopes that orient us” the conversation could have turned to the real question of how the symbol-systems, whether religious or not, orient people in a manner that gives them mutual identity and the ability to band together and become a society. The fact that there is an anthropomorphic patriarchal symbol of “God” or “His Majesty the King” or “Uncle Sam” or “Marx” at the center of the symbol-system is more determinative of it becoming and exploitive power hungry government than any religious sentiment. There is no qualitative moral difference in the basic sentiments of Moses, Jesus or Marx but each of their respective symbol-systems became controlled by people who couldn’t care less about the moral sentiments of the men who inspired the symbol-system..

The problem for this program is that the question “Is there an afterlife?” is addressed from very different frames of reference. All four, in their own way, answer the question “We can’t say if there is or not.” Hitchins and Harris reframe the question as “Is the supernatural fantasy of God in Heaven believable?” Rabbis David Wolpe and Bradley Artson Shavit turn the question into “Is belief in an afterlife beneficial to some people and if so then it doesn’t matter if it is true?” Both attempts to reframe the question are dodges.

Since Hitchens and Harris are really on a crusade against “religion,” which they define as belief in a supernatural anthropomorphic God, they always turn the issue to the past misdeeds of totalitarian religions. In other words, Hitchens and Harris dodge the question of “Is there and afterlife” by saying “when religion is in control they are bad, so anything said by those religionists must be false.”

Hitchens and Harris rest their position on the view that “religion is man made” and therefore it is false. I agree with them that piercing the self-delusional veil of those who believe their own religion comes from the “real God” while everyone else’s religion is only “man made” is a worthwhile goal, but Hitchens and Harris themselves go about this crusade with as much intellectual dishonesty and self-delusion of their own. Chris Hedges has written about their hypocrisy in his article “The Dangerous Atheism of Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris” with which I largely agree. (There are significant features of Hedges' article with which I disagree, but they are about his own pessimistic view of human nature, not his criticism of Hitchens and Harris.)

IS THERE AN AFTERLIFE?

If I had been on stage, I would have answered the question by saying plainly, “Yes. There is an afterlife and this is it.”

At one point Harris nearly approached this issue when he spoke about sleep to point out that every night we fall asleep into the oblivion of consciousness. However, Harris failed to get to the logical observation that we don’t go around fretting about “Is there an after-day?” Harris and the others missed this essential point.

We are certain of tomorrow because of our memories of yesterday. Yet we have no real certainty of tomorrow since anyone of us may not in fact live to see tomorrow if we die in our sleep, as any of us could were an airplane to fall from the sky. And though we have no absolute certainty of tomorrow, we have the certainty that today is the after-day of yesterday, and upon this certainty we rest our great confidence in the after-day of tomorrow.

Likewise, this life is the afterlife of the previous life, and our next life will be the after life of this life. The only difference between afterlives and after-days is our memory. We don’t remember all of our yesterdays, but we remember enough of them so that we can put together a symbol-system for our expectation of the days to come. For anyone who has accessed the memory of a past life and discovered that this life is the afterlife of previous lives, the certainty of an afterlife after this life becomes as certain as tomorrow is to today.

Yes, the certainty is “man made” but so what? Every bit of human understanding, including science, is “man made” because we are humans who understand by making symbol systems. The question that Hitchens and Harris want to get to by the threshold admission of one’s symbol system being “man made” is then to what degree does the symbol system comport with reality? And here’s the rub. Hitchens and Harris are advocates and proselytizers for the symbol system of science and as such refuse to acknowledge how their “reality” is also “man made.”

They believe that there is an objective “reality” that science is merely describing to the best of its current ability. They think that within this framework, they can hold up their scientific truths against the zany religious truths that have been promulgated and they win. However, as one of the Rabbis in the debate pointed out, there have been many zany propositions in the name of science and that doesn’t make the scientific endeavor worthless.

The fundamental delusion upon which Hitchens and Harris operate their road show is their claim that there is only one reality, the one that they say there is. They do not acknowledge that the reality that religion is attempting to negotiate, describe, and understand is not the physical reality of matter but the psychic reality of what is variously called spirit, soul, mind, consciousness, etc. While I agree that there is only one reality, like the claim of only one God, that reality (and that God) appears very different to the different people who are taking different perspectives.

Our understanding of “matter” is constantly changing and so there is no one view of matter held by science any more than there is one view of God held by religion. The point that we should be able to agree on is that we should not demand that other people take our point of view. To the extent that Hitchens and Harris are asking people with firmly held points of view about their God to let others be, then they have a message I can agree with. But to the extent that Hitchens and Harris ridicule people’s religion today because of the folly of the past, then they are committing the same sin they claim to oppose.

Underlying the quest for the answer to the question “Is there an afterlife?” is the angst caused by the very notion of time existing as past, present, and future. Any religion that wants to help people with this question of an afterlife must address the issue of time. When we look at time as past, present, and future we are taking ourselves out of time as if we exist in relation to time as a thing carried along the river of time. But in fact time is our very being. We are not external to time. We are the embodiment of time and time is another name for spirit, soul, God, consciousness, etc. We are no more outside of time than we are outside of God or mind. When we truly realize this there is a qualitative change in our sense of time and the generalized angst about the future is dissolved. At the same time, the issue of an afterlife is resolved by knowing that we are time itself and so we are the afterlife in this present moment.

The Confused Voice of the American Empire

2011-07-02T12:24:00.000-07:00

I'm in favor of the flotilla of ships sailing under the umbrella of the Free Gaza Campaign. I especially like the punning irony that one of the lead ships is named "The Audacity of Hope" in direct reference to President Obama's autobiographical book that now has been shown by his actions to be nothing more than political rhetoric and propaganda.

Let's be honest, Israel's illegal blockade of Gaza, as collective punishment of a people, has turned Gaza into the largest prison in the world, and I have pointed this out in several previous posts on this blog.

The Consul General of Israel in New York, Ido Aharoni, interviewed yesterday on Democracy Now! brought out all the old lame rationalizations and canards to defend the blockade. Basically, the official Israeli position is that, since Hamas are the bad guys and we are the good guys, we can do whatever we want against them.

Among the interesting tidbits of the interview was that Mr. Aharoni refused to plainly deny that Israeli spies sabotaged several ships of the flotilla. He dodged and weaved to avoid answering the question, and instead tried to turn the question away from the sabotage to claim the flotilla was "not legitimate." In "diplomatic-speak" not answering the question and instead providing as an answer the rationalization why the act in question would have been valid if it had been done simply amounts to an admission.

One particularly egregious and hurtful rationalization proffered by Mr. Aharoni was that Israel has "practically handed over the keys to Gaza. Hamas, instead of turning it into an oasis, turned it into a safe haven for terrorists." To say this is so stupid that it only shows the depth of Israeli self-delusion. First, there is not one shred of evidence that Gaza is "a safe haven for terrorists" from anywhere else in the world. So what Israel is calling "a safe haven for terrorists" merely translates into "a safe haven for Palestinians who continue to fight against the Israeli oppression of the Palestinian people" which by Israeli definition is the meaning of "terrorist." In other words, Israel can bomb Gaza and kill thousands of unarmed men, women, and children and Israelis have not become terrorists, but if only one Palestinian from Gaza dares to attack Israel then every Gazan is a terrorist.

But second, is the most insulting claim that suggests the people of Gaza could have turned it into "an oasis" while they were given "the keys" to their prison. This is the point that the Gazans are complaining about! The keys that they were given were only the keys to the cells, not to the prison gates. Israel still has the keys to the prison gates and is blockading the traffic in and out of the prison just like the Soviet Union blockaded the traffic in and out of Berlin in June 1948. The Soviet Union knew that if they controlled the food and fuel going in and out of Berlin that they would have practical control over the city.

Today the Israelis are using the same tactic to control Gaza by controlling what goes in and out of the city. How do Israeli officials dare to cay that Gaza could have been turned into an oasis when Israel controls what goes in and out of the Gaza and Israel does not allow any of the building materials to enter Gaza that would be necessary to build the oasis? Israel is just the prison warden saying why haven't the prisoners sewn new clothes when the warden won't let sewing machines or even needles into the prison because they could be used to make weapons.

Mr. Aharoni also stated that since the flotilla could have been sent to the Egyptian port of El Arish that there was no reason to attempt to dock at a port in Gaza and that to go to Gaza directly is "to create a provocation that is unneeded and will endanger the lives of all the people involved." But what danger is there? Only the danger created by the Israeli Navy itself when it plans to attack the flotilla! This is the age old lunacy of the perpetrator of a crime telling the victim that it is the victim's own behavior that is making them commit the crime. This Israeli logic is the very same logic used by al Queda to claim that the USA provoked the attacks on the Twin Towers.

There is not the slightest provocation in sailing a ship to Gaza except that created by the Israelis themselves. Israel is holding the people of Gaza hostage. What provocation is there in attempting to go speak directly with the hostages? Clearly, only the provocation created by the hostage taker who says you can't go meet directly to the hostages.

While we can understand how a hostage taker would think that speaking directly with his hostages would be "provocative" by calling into question the very legitimacy of the hostage taking, I see no justification for the USA to agree that there is provocation except to the same degree that the USA is in fact a co-conspirator with the hostage takers. No less of an official of the USA than our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has now plainly spoken to announce that the USA has taken sides with the hostage taking Israelis.

Here's an excerpt from a recent Q&A with Madam Secretary Clinton that highlights how the USA Empire is protecting its crony Israel:

QUESTION: And also, Madam Secretary, there’s reports that another flotilla may be headed to Gaza within the next couple days. What is your message to the organizers and participants in that? Thank you.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, we do not believe that the flotilla is a necessary or useful effort to try to assist the people of Gaza. Just this week, the Israeli Government approved a significant commitment to housing in Gaza. There will be construction materials entering Gaza and we think that it’s not helpful for there to be flotillas that try to provoke actions by entering into Israeli waters and creating a situation in which the Israelis have the right to defend themselves.

First, the USA is acknowledging that Israel, not Gaza, is in control of what can go in and out of Gaza. From Secretary Clinton's view, echoing the view of the Soviet Union in 1948, what problem could there be with a blockade when the blockading power that controls what is going in and out allows a pittance of materials in? In 1948 the USA knew the answer to that question and joining with the UK and other Western Allies organized the Berlin Airlift to break the blockade. Today the USA, like the Soviet Union then, is on the side of blockade, and instead of joining with other nations to break the blockade of Gaza the USA has become the greatest supporter of the blockade outside of Israel. Without the USA's support the blockade of Gaza simply could not be maintained.

Second, Secretary Clinton is claiming that the flotilla is the one being "provoking" by creating the situation! Again, it is Israel holding the hostages and defending the blockade! Attempts to break the blockade by going directly to the hostages may be provoking to the hostage takers, but until the USA admits that this is a hostage situation, what basis is there for the USA to even raise the spectre of provocation by those attempting to break the blockade? If the USA were to say, and mean it, "We are negotiating with the hostage takers to release the hostages and if they do not release the hostages within 60 days, then we will be begin the airlift to break the blockade, and in the mean time separate attempts such as this flotilla are counter productive." Then and only then, would Secretary Clinton's remarks make any sense whatsoever.

Third, and most revealing of the current situation, is the erroneous claim by Secretary Clinton that the flotilla would be "entering into Israeli waters." This is either just plain confusion on the part of Secretary Clinton or is an unintentional acknowledgement by a highest official of the US government that the USA recognizes Israel's national claim to the whole of Palestine, i.e., including Gaza and the West Bank, as being Israeli territory. Anyone who looks at a map of Gaza will see that it is on the shore line of the Mediterranean Sea. As such, according to international laws the territorial waters of Israel do not lie off the coast of Gaza, only off the coast of Israel. The first 12 nautical miles off the coast of Gaza, are the territorial waters of Gaza, and outside this 12 mile zone are the international water with the 200 nautical miles off the coast being the exclusive economic zone of Gaza.

Therefore, the territorial waters off Gaza are in no way "Israeli waters" as Secretary Clinton now openly claims, unless Gaza is a territory of Israel. In other words, in the eyes of Secretary Clinton, Israel is not blockading the territorial waters of Gaza but is merely policing its own territorial waters. By this sleight of hand regarding international law the USA rationalizes it's public delusion that there is no "blockade" and therefore no reason to break the non-existent blockade. So Secretary Clinton's remarks have opened the curtain on the wizard lurking behind to reveal that the USA does indeed support Israel's national claim to Gaza.

The importance of this revelation is that it reveals that what is behind the refusal of the USA to acknowledge Israel's foot dragging on peace accords is that the USA accepts that Israel has no long term intention to ever allow Gaza and the West Bank to become a sovereign nation. The now stated official USA position is that the territorial waters off Gaza are "Israeli waters," so the USA is recognizing Israel's assertion of its national sovereignty over Gaza.

I have previously blogged about my view that because of Israel's refusal to negotiate in good faith for the recognition of the sovereignty of Gaza and the West Bank, that the Palestinians should not delay any longer and should declare their independent sovereignty today, even if it meant a three-state solution to get it done. At the time, I could not foresee that the Hamas and Fatah factions would be able to work together. Today, under the pressure of the Palestinian people in light of the "Arabian Spring," Hamas and Fatah have a fragile accord which may or may not last. While it lasts they have a tentative plan to seek acknowledgment of Palestinian sovereignty by appeal to the UN. I understand this tactic and think that it is a valid tactic, even though I do not agree with it. In my view, there is no reason for the UN to acknowledge the sovereignty of a people who have not yet declared it for themselves. A clear and definite voice of independence by the people of Gaza and the West Bank is needed to counteract the voice of the American Empire that speaks only to cause confusion in the minds of other member nations of the UN.

If the Palestinians want to be taken seriously as a sovereign people, then they should not wait for the UN to act but should immediately declare their national independence and sovereignty, today, now, by the adoption of a founding document to be followed up with a constitutional document. Then they should immediately send out official diplomats to each member nation of the UN asking for diplomatic recognition of their independent sovereignty as the prelude to the request to the UN seeking recognition from the whole body. In this way, the world would be forced to take their claims of independence seriously and they would be going to the UN as independents not as dependents.

Sweep The Ground

2011-06-27T21:55:00.000-07:00

Here's a tidbit from an entry in the "Dictionary of Chinese Buddhist Terms" by William Edward Soothill and Lewis Hodous:

掃地 To sweep the floor, or ground, an act to which the Buddha is said to have attributed five kinds of merit; v. 毘奈耶雜事.

There's a great story I heard from one of Genjo Marinello Osho's teisho's available on line at http://feeds.feedburner.com/ChoBoJiMedia (Unfortunately right now I don't remember which teisho the story came from.)

It is about two brothers, with one being very smart and the other being very slow. The slow brother loved to hear the Buddha speak but he could never remember anything the Buddha said even only a few minutes later. He went to the Buddha and said he didn't know what to do because he could never remember all the beautiful but difficult teachings of the Buddha. Buddha said "Here's an area of ground. Just sweep this ground and while you do it, say over and over to your self 'sweep the ground, sweep the ground' ." The slow brother did this, and for a while the Buddha came by once a day to see if he could remenber this simple practice and he could. The slow brother was able to carry on this practice quite well always repeating to himself "sweep the ground, sweep the ground" as he swept continuously every day. Eventually, the slow brother was greatly awakened much sooner than his much smarter brother.

The Marvelous Moon

2011-05-17T14:35:00.000-07:00

Standing here, it’s raining everywhere.
From this perspective it looks like the moon is hiding.
When I stand on the dark side of the moon,
it looks like the whole world is hiding.

Even though the moon is obscured by clouds,
By the power of moment by moment remembrance,
Every drop of rain brilliantly reflects the moon.
Homage to the marvelous moon of awakening

The Full Moon Poetry Society also invites you to write and share your poetry.

Why Do We Prefer Pictures of Placid Nature As Images of Spirituality?

2011-04-27T23:45:00.000-07:00

For images of spiritual inspiration and realization we tend toward scenes of calm and placid nature: blooming plum trees, ocean or mountain vistas, mushrooms sprouting in the moist mulch, birds soaring in the empty sky, etc. Why? Why not scenes of hurricanes, tsunamis, rivers flooding their banks, tornadoes ripping up the landscape, etc. since these must also represent spirituality? Nature has plenty of death and destruction that goes along with the placid. Isn't this preference for the placid a variation of the "God is good" feeling that just doesn't quite know how to deal with the absolute also being the source of the bad, the delusional, and the unreal?

In Buddhism this dilemma has historically come out in the debate over whether emptiness, the alaya-vijnana (eighth consciousness), or Tathagatagarbha are the source or fountainhead of both the "true" and the "false" or whether is it somehow so undefiled in its undiscriminated state that it can only be called the source for the pure and the good while false thinking and afflictions do not have their root in the emptiness of the alaya. Zen has traditionally gone along with the analysis found in the treatise called the Discourse on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana in which the true suchness of the one mind-nature is seen as the non-dual source of all dharmas, both real and unreal, both true and false. In other words, if the good and pure have their origin in the unborn nondual reality then so do the bad and the defiled. In the Christian frame of reference this is the recognition that God is the creator of both the good and the evil in the world. Bearing this ambiguity in mind is very difficult for most people and becomes “mind blowing.”

But as I see it, there is an underlying reason why we naturally lean toward placid pictures of nature as the representative images of our own true nature just as Christians are naturally biased toward assigning the "good" to God. It is difficult to put into words, but while the absolute is, in itself, non-dual and is the common ground of both poles of such polarities as peace and rage, creation and destruction, the true and the false, etc. as this non-dual reality appears to our awareness as a memory or intuition within the context of our dualistic discrimination it is the images of calm and unperturbed shining or brightness that most resonate with our memory or intuition of the vital presence of our own true nature. We know intellectually that our own nature encompasses both sides of any opposition, but our feeling is that one side is more representative of the absolute nature of reality while the other side is more representative of the relative nature of reality.

But even the bifurcation of the nature of reality into absolute and relative is already a post-discrimination polarity. And it is because this bifurcation is the underlying fact of our ability even to have post-discrimination consciousness, that we naturally, naively, and comfortably identify the absolute nature of reality as calm, peaceful, silent, pure, undefiled, good, shining, brightness while we associate relative reality as chaotic, noisy, defiled, bad, delusional, dark, etc. However, in order to see our true nature for ourselves as one tastes the ocean for oneself to know its saltiness, we have to let go of our tendency of polarizing and discriminating everything into categories of good and evil, calm and chaotic, silent and noisy, etc., and directly realize our pre-discrimination awareness.

And here’s where the mystery comes up: when we realize our non-discriminating awareness there is absolutely nothing realized and no one realizing anything, but awareness still functions and in that functioning again discriminates and in that discrimination we look back in remembrance upon that undiscriminated awareness as if it were clear, calm, silent, brightness, when in actuality it had in itself neither those characteristics nor their opposites. But in our post-discrimination awareness it just makes sense to characterize our sense of non-discriminating awareness that way.

This inescapability of our polarizing tendency of consciousness is brought to the foreground in the Zen koan called “The Buffalo Passing Through the Window” that is Case 38 of the Gateless Checkpoint (Ch. Wumen Guan, J. Mumonkan) collection of koans. It goes like this:

Wuzu said, "For instance, a water buffalo passes through the latticed window; the head, horns, and four hoofs all pass through completely. What is the reason the tail is not able to pass through?”

No matter how much we think or imagine that we are all the way and completely on one side of a polarity, there is always a bit on the other side. No matter how much we may think we are good, there is always a bit of bad left in us. No matter how much we may think we are bad, there is always a bit of good left in us. No matter how much we think there is light, there is a bit of dark remaining. No matter how much we think there is darkness, there is a bit of light remaining. But even if we intellectually understand this aspect of the mutual connection of the opposites so that the tail can never pass through in the world of the relative, we may still imagine a world of the absolute where our water buffalo can completely pass through the window.

When we realize the pre-discrimination awareness that is the falling away of body and mind, we may imagine that we have gone completely through the window, including the tail, into realizing the unborn, but lo and behold, the tail has still not gone through as demonstrated by our awareness once again flowing in the direction of discrimination and we “return” to the realm of relative discriminations as if the buffalo’s entire body has flowed back into its tail turning itself inside out. Yet no matter how much we may then think we have completely come into the world of relative discrimination, still our tail remains within the non-discriminating awareness that is the unconscious emptiness of our Buddha Nature that makes conscious discrimination possible.

So as we look at this world of things, if our awareness discriminates things as objects, we have gone through the window in one direction, but still our tail of non-discriminating awareness has not entered into discrimination otherwise there would be no cycles of transformation and every object would be eternally fixed in one form and no life could occur. And as we are able to look at things as completely empty of self-nature with our realization of the bright shinning non-dual awareness, we have gone through the window in the opposite direction, but still our tail, now of discriminating awareness, has not gone through and entered into non-discrimination, otherwise there would be no form at all and so no transformation, and no life could occur.

It is the genius of Zen that the presentation of the Buddha Dharma in volumes of words in the Avatamsaka (Huayen) Sutra, and in the many treatises on that sutra, describing the mutual interpenetration of the absolute (emptiness) and the relative (form) and the mutual interpenetration of all phenomenal forms, is presented in a pithy koan of two sentences through the image of the water buffalo passing through the window and asking what is the reason the tail can not pass through?

In Zen, we recognize that no matter how much we may aspire to present the realization of true suchness within a placid image of nature such as the serene Zen garden, we have not completely captured the true suchness of our mind’s nature within the image any more than the water buffalo has completely gone through the latticed window. And even with the recognition that both the serenity of nature and the howling destructiveness of nature equally represent the realization of true suchness, still the water buffalo’s tail has not completely gone through the window. No matter what image we may have, still the water buffalo does not go completely through the window. What enormous horns that water buffalo has, what a big head, what gigantic shoulders, what great hooves, and what a huge body, but that little tail, it makes all the difference swishing with life!

Three Threes In Front, Three Threes In Back.

2011-04-22T13:55:00.000-07:00

This is a response to Dosho Port's "Wild Fox Zen" blog entry Dragons and Snakes Intermingle Dosho is musing on the conundrum of Zen teachers who act like ordinary fools and how we respond to them. Its a topic that calls forth responses from the dragons and snakes of our own nature. Dosho is riffing on the koan Manjusri's Three Threes which is case 35 of the Blue Cliff Record. Here's my translation of the koan:

Raised: Wenshu (Manjusri) asked Wuzhu, "What place have you departed from recently?"
Wuzhu said, "The region of the South."
Shu said, "So how is the Buddha Dharma kept alive in the region of the South?"
Zhu said, "Recently, few of the mendicants of the Dharma respect moral discipline and the rules."
Shu said, "How many assemblies?"
Zhu said, "Perhaps three hundred, perhaps five hundred."
Wuzhu asked Wenshu/Manjusri, "So how is it kept alive in this space?"
Shu said, "The ordinary and sages reside together, dragons and snakes intermingle."
Zhu said, "How many assemblies?"
Shu said, "Three threes in front; three threes in back."

I appreciate the “dragons and snakes intermingling.” It is also a great expression for the feelings stirred up. People thought these fellows were dragons and “lo and behold” they acted like snakes. To paraphrase the Bodhisattva of the Levant, “Let those who have never acted like snakes throw the first stones.” Any adult who believes they have never acted like a snake is truly delusional. It is no excuse to say “I’ve just been a ribbon snake, not a king cobra.”

If nothing else, the venting of venom against these Zen teachers has shown that people are meeting on the common ground of being snakes. Three threes in front! Yet, to see only the dragon and not the snake; three threes in back!

I’ve been reluctant to say much about these controversies because I’m all too aware of past lives where I was a mass murderer or a wife-beater.

We can only make these events into Dharma food by the alchemical transformation of turning the three poisons into the three treasures. .People who criticize Genpo, Eido, and others for not living up to their dragon persona do no service to the Dharma by maintaining the mental apartheid of dragons and snakes. The lineage of awakening now called Zen, as Bodhidharma told us, is entering by the gate of principle in which we bear profound faith that the one true nature of beings is the same, without self and without other, with the ordinary and the sagely one and the same.

It is not someone else’s greed, hatred and ignorance that must be transformed. It is our own. It is not that the three poisons are jettisoned, discarded, or left behind and replaced by the three treasures. It is three by three: three threes in front. The greed itself is and becomes the compassion of the sangha, the hatred itself is and becomes the equanimity of the Dharma, the ignorance itself is and becomes the wisdom of the Buddha.

What is most difficult for the inexperienced to understand and accept is how the transformation works in the opposite direction: with three threes in back; where the wisdom of Buddha manifests as ignorance, the equanimity of the Dharma revealing aversion, and the compassion of the sangha showing our greed. What kind of topsy-turvey world is this?

Our Idealism wants a world where poisons become treasures, and not a world where treasures become poisons. But hey, it’s three threes in front, three threes in back, nothing amiss.
For the Dharma it is essential to be able to distinguish poisons from treasures, but it is just as essential to see their sameness, and to see in what way dragons and snakes intermingle within each of us.

Ode to the One Vehicle

2011-04-19T16:03:00.000-07:00

This is a poetic collage of bits taken from various sources, now juxaposed and combined with my words to string together this ode in praise of the One Vehicle. The primary source material is from Zen Master Guifeng Zongmi's Introduction to the Collection of the Various Expositions of the Fountainhead of Zen, with other cullings from the Sutra of the One Vehicle of Queen Srimila's Lion's Roar, the Huayen Sutra, the Lankavatara Sutra, the Lotus Sutra, and the writings of First Zen Ancestor Bodhidharma, Third Zen Ancestor Sengcan, Fifth Zen Ancestor Hongren, and Sixth Zen Ancestor Huineng. Having eaten their words, what you see here as strung together is only my fault.

Ode to the One Vehicle

By Gregory Wonderwheel

Wanderers in the Way,
Hear the One Vehicle (Ekayana) of the Tathagata’s lion’s roar.
Everyone of the multitude of beings in every case has Buddha Nature,
And without exception are led to enter the Way of the One Vehicle.

That One Vehicle
Always abides in the Dharma-realm,
Always silent and always illuminating.

The immeasurable and innumerable expedient methods of the Buddha Dharma,
Indeed in every case, are for the reason of the One Buddha Vehicle.
Directly pointing to one’s own mind immediately reveals true nature,
And opens the knowing and seeing of the Buddha.

Great master Bodhidharma transmitted the lineage of the One Vehicle of Southern India
Without self and without other,
With the worldly and the sacred one and the same,
Only the Bodhidharma lineage transmits the inheritance by means of Mind.
The Mind is the fountainhead of the Dharma.

Great Master Huineng instructed to use establishing no-thought as the lineage.
Those who see the essence of no-thought see the lineage,
Then thought after thought in every case is the One Buddha Vehicle.
If that mind is entirely extinguished,
There is no vehicle, as well as someone in the vehicle.

If you want to choose the One Vehicle,
Do not hate the six dusts.
All things are completely the evidentiary things of the One Mind.
The One Mind is completely the One Mind of all things.
All things completely then are True Mind.
By flowing unobstructed, consequently all things are wonderful medicine.

The true mind of root enlightenment is like the brightness of the mirror.
There are no appearances that can be obtained.
Therefore all things are like appearances in the mirror.
The essence of the one true heart-mind
Is indeed one’s own essence of true suchness.

That which is Dharma knows one’s own nature.
That which is Dharma knows the real truth.
That which is Dharma knows the One Vehicle.
In every case consider the Dharma of the One Vehicle as the real truth

The deep necessarily includes the shallow;
the shallow does not reach the deep.
Likewise, the One Vehicle necessarily includes the various vehicles;
While the various vehicles do not reach the One Vehicle
Because the various vehicles immediately are the One Vehicle,
Those who gain the One Vehicle
Gain the unexcelled unified equality-enlightenment (anuttara-samyak-saṃbodhi),
Always abiding in the Dharma-realm,
Able to touch and yet immediately to pass through.

[and in my poor excuse for Chinese]

一乘頌
Gregory Wonderwheel 述

道流。
聞如來師子吼一乘。
一切眾生皆有佛性。
無不引入一乘道。

一乘者。
常住法界常寂常照也。

佛法無量無數方便。
是皆為一佛乘故。
直指自心即顯真性。
開佛知見。

菩提達磨大師傳南天竺一乘宗。
無自無他。
凡聖等一。
以心傳嗣。
唯達摩宗。
心是法源。

慧能大師示以立無念為宗。
見無念體者見宗
即念念皆一佛乘
若彼心滅盡，　　
無乘及乘者，

若欲取一乘
勿惡六塵
諸法是全一心之證法。
一心是全諸法之一心。
諸法全即真心。
通則諸法妙藥。

本覺真心如鏡之明
無相可得。
故一切法如鏡中相。
一真心體。
者真如自體。

法者知自性。
法者知真諦。
法者知一乘。
皆以一乘法為真諦。

深必該淺。
淺不至深。
亦一乘必該諸乘
卻諸乘不至一乘
諸乘即是一乘故。
得一乘者。
得阿耨多羅三藐三菩提。
常住法界。
能感而即通。

Huangbo on the One Vehicle

2011-03-05T15:29:00.000-08:00

The text titled A Synopsis of the Dharma of Transmitting Mind of Zen Master Duanji of Huangbo Mountain (黃檗山斷際禪師傳心法要) was written by Pei Xiu (797-870), a government official and member of the Chinese literati, who was also a lay disciple of Huangbo Xiyun (J. Obaku Kiun) (d. c. 850) who is also known here by the name Duanji of Huangbo Mountain. On at least two separate occasions, Pei Xiu invited Huangbo to the City where Pei Xiu lived and they engaged in extensive discussions. After their meetings, Pei Ziu wrote down what he remembered to the best of his ability. After Huangbo died, Pei Ziu gave his manuscript to Huangbo’s disciples Taizhou and Fajian to share with the elder disciples at Huangbo’s temple, to edit and publish if they felt it accurately represented Huangbo’s teaching, which they evidently did, since it has come down to us today.

Huangbo was the main teacher of the famous Linji Yixuan (J. Rinzai Gigen) (d. 867). There are great stories about Huangbo. He was well over six feet tall and very imposing in stature, yet he was known for having a callous on his forehead from his practice of bowing so often. At one point he was the Dharma teacher of an Imperial prince hiding from execution at Huangbo’s monestary before the prince was able later to take the throne back from the usurping cousins.

In this section of A Synopsis of the Dharma of Transmitting Mind, Huangbo refers directly to the One Vehicle and connects is directly to his core teaching of the One Mind and the legend of the origin of the Zen lineage. This is a solid line through the teachings of Bodhidharma, Huineng, Mazu, and Baizhang connecting the Zen lineage with the One Vehicle.

The Tathagata appeared in the world and wanted to explain the True Dharma of the One Vehicle, however the multitude of beings did not believe and raised slanders, sinking in the sea of sufferings. If he did not explain at all, however, he’d fall into stingy greed, and not serve as the subtle Way of universal renunciation for the multitude of beings. He proceeded to establish the expediency of explaining there are three vehicles. For the vehicles there is great and small; for attainment there is shallow and deep. All are not the original Dharma. For this reason it was said, “There is only the Way of the One Vehicle, two or more however, are not true.” So, in the end, because he had not yet displayed the Dharma of the One Mind, he called Kasyapa to share the Dharma seat and separately handed over the One Mind, going away from words to explain the Dharma. The Dharma of this one branch decrees a separate practice. If you are able to agree with those who awaken, then you arrive at the Buddha stage!

Here’s the Chiinese original:

如來現世。欲說一乘真法則眾生不信興謗。沒於苦海。若都不說。則墮慳貪。不為眾生溥捨妙道。遂設方便說有三乘。乘有大小。得有淺深。皆非本法。故云。唯有一乘道餘二則非真。然終未能顯一心法。故召迦葉同法座別付一心。離言說法。此一枝法令別行。若能契悟者。便至佛地矣。
[T48n2012Ap0382b03(05) to T48n2012Ap0382b09(00)]

For those who enjoy conparing translations, here are two other versions of the same section.

Here is John Blofeld’s translation from The Zen Teachings of Huang Po, On the Transmission of Mind (Grove Press, Inc., NY, 1958). Blofeld’s translation is quite nice and reads very easily. However, he has some oddities which I don’t understand how he arrived at them. For example, he translated the phrase 此一枝法 as “This branchless Dharma” misreading the word “one” in “one branch” or “single branch” for a negative “branchless”. Also, he sometimes translates “Dharma” (法) as “the Dharma” but then at other times translates it as “the Law.” In my style of translating I strongly oppose this practice. I try as much as possible to use the same word (or a form of the same word) for the same Chinese character wherever it appears, and a different word for different Chinese characters, so that the English reader will know that the English word is translating the same Chinese word.

When the Tathagata manifested himself in this world, he wished to preach a single Vehicle of Truth. But people would not have believed him and , by scoffing at him, would have become immersed in the sea of sorrow (samsara). On the other hand, if he had said nothing at all, that would have been selfishness, and he would not have been able to diffuse knowledge of the mysterious Way for the benefit of sentient beings. So he adopted the expedient of preaching that there are Three Vehicles. As, however, these Vehicles are relatively greater and lesser, unavoidably there are shallow teachings and profound teachings—none of them being the original Dharma. so it is said that there is only a One-Vehicle Way; if there were more, they could not be real. Besides there is absolutely no way of describing the Dharma of the One Mind. Therefore the Tathagata called Kasyapa to come sit with him on the Seat of Proclaiming the Law, separately entrusting to him the Wordless Dharma of the One Mind. This branchless Dharma was to be separately practised [SIC]; and those who should be tacitly Enlightened would arrive at the state of Buddhahood. (p. 52.)

Here is John R. McRae’s translation from Zen Texts, Text One: “Essentials of the Transmission of Mind”, (Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, 2005). I think this translation clearly exhibits some of the problems with inserting brackets into the text to assist the reader. Once a translator feels free to adopt this practice I find that they usually over do it McRae does here. In my style of translation, I try as much as possible to avoid inserting explanatory words, with or without brackets, to leave the text as close to the original as can be while still being readable. While there are a few words or phrases here and there that are an improvement over Blofeld’s translation, as a whole I find the problems with McRea’s translation make a worse translation than Blofeld’s. For example, there is no good reason for McRae to translate “the Way” (道) as “Enlgihtenment.” The text was written in Chinese by native Chinese speakers with several hundreds of years acculturation of Buddhism, so there is no rational basis to change the translation of the Way as if it is a translation of the Sanskrit bodhi.

When the Tathagata was in the world he wanted to preach the True Dharma of the One Vehicle. However, sentient beings did not have faith and reviled [the Dharma], thus drowning themselves in the sea of suffering. If [the Buddha] had not preached anything at all he would have fallen into [the transgression of] parsimony and would not have [been able to] dispense entirely his wondrous enlightenment on behalf of sentient beings. Thus he adopted skillful means and preached the existence of three vehicles. These vehicles include [both the] Great [Vehicle] (Mahayana) and Small [Vehicle] (Hinayana) and their attainments are shallow or profound, but they are all other than the fundamental Dharma.
Therefore it is said, “There is only the enlightenment (Way) of the One Vehicle; the other two are not true.” However, [the Buddha] was ultimately unable to manifest the Dharma of the One Mind, so he called Kasyapa to share his Dharma seat and individually conveyed to him the preaching of the Dharma that is of the One Mind and which transcends words. He had this single branch of the Dharma carried out separately [from the rest of Buddhism]. If you are able to achieve conformance with and enlightenment to [the One Mind], then you have attained the stage of Buddhahood. (p. 29)

Cross posted at Zen Forum International

_/|\_
Gregory

Reply to "There is No Zen, Only Zen Teachers"

2011-02-28T00:24:00.000-08:00

Zen teacher Barry Magid has recently written an essay titled,
"There is No Zen, Only Zen Teachers"

It is an interesting and thought provoking piece, obviously heart felt. But I am not enamoured with it and find it to be lacking in depth. I'm sure I'm not the intended audience so these critical comments should be taken with large doses of salt. We're all Buddhists here so my criticism is not intended to disenfranchise Magid's views but to put them in another perspective.

Essentially, Magid's essay is about evaluating Zen in America, but the task of actually doing the evaluating becomes sort of lost. Magid seems to be saying that evaluating the depth of Buddha Dharma is too difficult a task, so he is satisfied with a simple Buddha Dharma. All the great Zen masters from Baizhang to Torei Enji have said that we need to be able to discern the deep from the shallow, the live from the dead, whether one is facing forward or backward, etc. This is not the evaluation or judgment of "good and bad" but the discrimination of vertical and horizontal.

I suppose my main objection to Magid's essay is that his vision of the Dharma is too prosaic and simplistic. Since Layman Pang described the Dharma in verse saying, "Miraculous and wondrous, Hauling water and carrying firewood.", people all over have grasped onto the water and firewood while ignoring the miraculous and wondrous. If I have any point at all, it is to see the Dharma not only in the water and firewood but also in the miraculous and wondrous, and in the activity that merges them: the hauling and carrying.

Magid's article is in the blockquotes with my comments interspersed in brackets.

In response to the scandals enveloping certain Zen teachers, most notably these days, Eido Shimano and Genpo Merzel, I sometimes hear it said that, flawed as these individuals are, they nonetheless have played an important part in the transmission of Zen in America, and we must not “throw the baby out with the bath water.” This attitude is also being retrospectively applied to the case of Maezumi Roshi, who, while it is admitted he was an alcoholic and womanizer, is nonetheless honored as the founder of the now flourishing White Plum Asangha. Along with the baby and the bathwater there are many metaphors that are deployed to try to separate out the pure untainted teaching from the flawed personality.

[GW: What is the “pure untainted teaching”? In zen, there is no such thing. Do I need to recite the examples? Isn’t the pure and untainted teaching that in his 45 years of teaching Buddha did not say a word? In zen, “purity” is both a medicine and a disease and only in the appropriate application is the difference made.]

One student of Eido Shimano suggested to me that he was like a brilliant conductor who is able to create unique orchestral music; why should we be preoccupied with his personal life?

[GW: No question that such misguided students can benefit form guidance.]

Maezumi Roshi’s daughter has recently published in Sweeping Zen a defense of her father’s and of Genpo’s Dharma, a teaching we are admonished not to discard despite their personal transgressions – a defense that is, to my mind, tragically ironic, given that she herself was the baby almost literally thrown out by her father, while his Dharmic bathwater has been so devoutly conserved.

[GW comment: Which the baby, which the bathwater?]

In Dharma centers, as in families where incest has occurred, there is on the part of the abused person the terrible conflict between the experience of the parent as loving caretaker and the parent as an abuser. Our minds can rarely tolerate holding onto both images at once. An almost inevitable response is to either deny the abuse and so preserve the good parent or to totally demonize the abuser and erase the good that they did.

Our challenge is to acknowledge both sides without splitting the person in two and at the same time, not try to split off the good from the bad and imagine we can have one without having to come to terms with the other. A person’s character is not so divisible that one aspect is not implicated in the others. Very often, it is our virtues, or our most basic human needs, that taken to an extreme become our vices. Charisma, real talents and insights that make us attractive and valuable to others, a need for love and to give love, an ability to lead and a capacity to manipulate, a role that encourages idealization and the tantalizing promise of having what everyone is seeking — it is in just such human packages that the Dharma is manifested and transmitted.

[GW: Yes. indeed, we need to acknowledge both sides whenever there is sidedness. But is character really the issue? That seems to be the crux of the problem. There are some who maintain that Buddha Dharma is all about character. Others who say that the Dharma can not be ascertained by characteristics. Certainly our Zen family goes along with the Diamond Cutter Sutra when it says that the Tathagata is not perceived by the possession of attributes or characteristics. Is the Dharma then to be perceived by such characteristics as "good character"? This is one of the deep questions of Buddha Dharma that those in the shallow waters have not yet plunged into.]

Just what is this precious Dharma, so separable from the character and conduct of the teacher, supposed to consist of?

[GW comment: Isn’t this the question, “What is the essence of Buddhism?”, that is asked in so many koans? Zhao Zhou’s “Cypress tree in the courtyard”, Dongshan’s “Three pounds of flax.” Linji’s “Ka!” are all answers to this question about what this precious Dharma consists of.]

Is the Dharma some pure gem-like flame that is transmitted from generation to generation irrespective of the nature or quality of the human candle that carries it?

[GW: Yes.... and not exactly.]

Does it have some unchanging essential nature that exists apart from and is unsullied by its transitory human manifestation?

[GW: Yes.... and not exactly..]

Is it not the very meaning of the Buddha Dharma that no thing has such an essential nature?

[GW: It is the very nature of the Buddha Dharma that no thing has an essential meaning, and even the Dharma does not have an essential meaning as the term is usually objectified.]

That emptiness and interconnectedness are inescapable aspects of our nature is the message that has come down to us from Shakyamuni.

[GW: When seen as “aspects,” concepts like emptiness and interconnectedness can be both leading and misleading.]

The self (or the soul), in most cultures before and after the Buddha, has been imagined to be a non-material essence contingently connected to and potentially separable from its material vehicle, the body. Shakyamuni’s realization was that the self and all existence was empty of an unchanging essential nature. We are irreducibly the product and manifestation of the flux of cause and effect which extend infinitely and incalculably in all directions.

[GW: Okay, that’s a fun way to say it. Any verbal formulation has its limitations, and we can enjoy such formulations for what they are worth.]

What then is this Dharma we, as teachers hold, maintain and transmit?

[GW: Good question. This Dharma is not a formulation. ]

In all cultures there is art, music and religion. All cultures have a conception of the good, the true and the beautiful. Yet there is no essential element common to art, music and religion across all cultures. There is no single definition of the good, the true or the beautiful that has applied throughout history. Poetry, for instance, comes down to us in the West from the time of Homer and Sappho. We can recognize what they have written as poetry even though the poetry of many modern poets would not be recognizable as poetry to them. The same is true of Western art and music. Abstract art would have been considered an contradiction in terms in cultures where art was synonymous with the mimetic.
Art, music, poetry – and I suggest religion, including the Buddha Dharma – are “transmitted” generation to generation, the way all culturally defined activities are, embodied in the practices of the makers and the participants.

[GW: To equate Buddha Dharma with art, music, poetry and religion is the narrow-minded (i.e., small-vehicle) view of Buddha Dharma.]

Art, ultimately, is simply what the artists of a certain time and place create.

[GW: This is exactly why Buddha Dharma is not like art. Buddha Dharma is not what Buddhists of a certain time and place create.]

Artists, musicians, priests, teachers all occupy their respective cultural niches and the products of their activity are inseparable from the lives they lead in the making of it.

[GW: Buddha Dharma is not something that occupies a cultural niche. Buddha Dharma is not the possession of Buddhist artists, musicians, teachers, or priests.]

There is no Platonic essence of capital A “Art” that one generation of artists transmits to the next. Artists learn from, imitate, challenge and subvert the art of their contemporaries and predecessors. Dharma teachers likewise learn from, imitate, challenge and subvert the teaching of their teachers. The nature, the meaning of, the Dharma in any generation is nothing but the teaching, the behavior, the lives of those who are teaching and living it at any given time.

[GW: I suppose there are Dharma teachers who view teaching the Dharma like teaching art, but I see that view as “nothing but” a narrow-minded (i.e., shallow) view of the Dharma as “teaching, behavior, and lives.” Shallow Buddhism is still Buddhism, but it is still shallow Buddhism. The nature of the Dharma should not be confused with meaning. The nature of Dharma is not limited to being “nothing but the teaching, the behavior, the lives of those who are teaching and living it at any given time.” That’s like saying the nature of the entire Cosmos is nothing but the teaching, the behavior, the lives of those who are teaching and living it at any given time. A teacher expresses the nature of the Dharma in the way that a blade of grass expresses the nature of the Dharma. But I wouldn’t say that there is no Dharma without a teacher any more than saying there is no Dharma without a blade of grass.]

The Buddhism of America both is and is not the Buddhism of Shakyamuni, and our Chinese and Japanese ancestors. There is no Zen, only Zen teachers.

[GW: Of course the attempt here is to be cutely ironic by turning Huangbo’s statement on its head. Huangbo said, “In all of the Great Tang, there are no zen teachers.” When someone asked what about all the teaching in the monasteries and temples, Huangbo said, “I did not say there was no zen, only no zen teachers.”]

The Dharma transmits a teaching about what are presented as foundational, inescapable facts about existence, namely that no “thing” (including the thing we imagine is our “self”) has a separate existence, and that no “thing” is unchanging or stands outside the web of cause and effect.

[GW comment: A “teaching about inescapable facts about existence” is not the whole of the Dharma, not the Dharma itself, only a teaching about the Dharma.]

But the Dharma is not presented as a treatise in physics, it is passed down to us as having a religious, ethical and moral implication.

[GW comment: The moral and ethical teachings of the Dharma are not mere implications, yet neither are they to be mistaken for the complete Dharma. The oil (sila, morality) in the lamp is needed for the wick (samadhi) to hold the flame (prajna), but if there is no wick and no flame, the lamp is not a functioning lamp no matter how full of oil it is.]

It posits that our personal suffering, and all the greedy, grasping, violent behavior in which we indulge in order to escape our suffering, can be fundamentally altered by a deep realization of the emptiness and impermanence of the self along with all other “things.” So the Dharma really puts forth two propositions: one about the nature of reality at a very fundamental and abstract level; and second a claim about the potential for relieving suffering and ending misconduct when the first is fully realized.

[GW comment: The notion of the Dharma as propositions is the view of the Dharma at the beginning stage when one has no practical understanding of the Dharma. The abstractness put forth as the Dharma is only abstract for those who find it difficult to understand. Once one sees one’s nature the Dharma no longer appears to be abstract at all. The question of relieving suffering and ending misconduct have to do with karma and there is a profound mystery to be looked into about the relationship of seeing one’s nature and karma. The koan of Baizhang’s (Hyakujo) Fox is one of the karma koans which is a door to this.]

The Buddha Dharma is transmitted by and within the form of life of those who realize and practice it.

[GW comment: Yet the Dharma should never be confused for such forms of life.
From the Diamond Cutter Sutra:

If using form to see me,
Or using sound to seek me,
Indeed the person travels the wrong way,
And is not suitable to see me

The body of the Dharma (Dharmakaya) is not to be found within cognition.]

Traditionally, this was a monastic lifestyle, a model that essentially claimed this is how life would and should look if we all realized the truth of the Dharma.

[GW comment: Originally there was no monasticism, only drop-outs from society taking up the homeless life who were wandering mendicants like the Buddha and known as sramanas. Over time, after the death of Buddha and due to various social and political conditions, monasticism developed as the Buddhist sramanas became institutionalized bhiksus and their seasonal rainy season retreats became year-round living establishments. But all the while, evenn though monastics were the specialists, there was never a time without Buddhist lay practitioners of various degrees of involvement, practice, and realization.]

That form of life, which one might imagine manifesting fully and spontaneously as the expression of realization, became, through the precepts and the rules of monastic order, a vehicle for manifesting and bringing about that realization. As such, it could fulfill those dual functions well or badly. That is, the monastic community could, or could not, succeed in modeling a non-self-centered life ( short hand for a life based on the realization of the emptiness of self-nature) and secondly, the monastic life could, or could not, succeed in promoting the actual experience of realization among its members.

[GW comment: The idealization of monastic life must be brought back to earth with the emphasis that the “could or could not” means the “form of life” really is not the important factor at all.]

When we look at how the Dharma has been transmitted in America, we see that the forms of life involved have changed in many important ways, including the attempt to integrate Zen practice with lay life. So how’s that going?

[GW comment: Its going as good as it ever has.]

What does the misconduct of teachers say about how that’s going?

[GW comment: We had better remember when embarking down this line of reasoning that a correlation is not proof of causation. Also that there was no such golden age of monasticism where all teachers were entirely free of misconduct.]

What we have to evaluate is a whole package, a whole historical moment, which only abstractly and artificially can be separated into parts.

[GW comment: The whole package can not be evaluated by standing on one side or the other, but only by standing on the zero point of the scales of evaluation.]

When we look back, for instance, at the history of the American Civil War, we see on one hand horrific carnage and loss of life, and on the other, a series of events that, in the name of preserving the Union, also resulted in the ending of slavery. What does it mean to ask “Was it worth it?” Was the Civil War a “good or just war?” In some sense, the question asks us to perform a thought experiment in which we are to imagine whether or not the good outcome, the ending of slavery, could have been accomplished without the terrible loss of life the actual war entailed. If we think we can easily imagine there was a non-violent, political means to end slavery that was ignored or not considered, we may say the war was a terrible mistake. But if we think, no, slavery wouldn’t have ended in the United States for another generation or two or three, how can we weigh the cost in life against that goal? If we are pacifists, no cause can justify such bloody means. But perhaps we long for is a utilitarian calculus that will give us an answer, what price is fair?, reasonable?, sane? to pay for the end of slavery?

[GW comment: Unfortunately “the end of slavery” is a bit of an illusion as white supremacy has not been ended and the civil war is now a civil cold war that remains alive and smoldering. ]

In the Dostoyevsky’s “The Brothers Karamazov,” we are asked to consider whether the whole order and existence of the universe is “worth” the painful death of a single innocent child.

[GW comment: Yes, this is a great koan. Yunmen said that from the perspective of after awakening, “Every day is a good day.” But how can it be a good day with innocent children are killed? The answer to this can not be found by evaluation! Not even if the evaluation is an evaluation of the whole package!]

In fact, we cannot choose, we cannot have one without the another and we must accept life, including the death of innocent children, as a whole.

[GW comment: So if we must accept life as a whole, where then is the room for the evaluation as a whole? Isn’t evaluation the art of accepting and rejecting?]

When I think of the state of the Dharma in America, I find I must say yes to it whole, which is to say I admit that its history, like all history, is a tragic whole.

[GW comment: The first Noble Truth: Life is suffering.]

There is no Zen apart from Zen teachers.

[GW comment: This seems like a non sequitur having no connection to what preceded it. In fact, though there are no Zen teachers without zen, it does not follow that there is no Zen apart from Zen teachers, in the sense that Zen is not dependent on the presence or absence of Zen teachers.]

There is no pure part to split off and honor while distancing ourselves from its failures. There is no way to say that the transmission of Zen to the West is “worth” the abuse of a single student. Isaiah Berlin adopted as a title for one of his books a quotation from Kant which he translates, “Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing has ever been made.” The Dharma, here and elsewhere, can be no exception. The lives of our teachers are crooked, sometimes in an endearing way, the way Suzuki Roshi could call himself a crooked cucumber, but also sometimes crooked in a way that is actually criminal. The realization of emptiness and interconnectedness by human beings does not, it seems, reliably transform them into something more than human.

[GW: Hw could it? There is an old Zen saying, “Pure gold refined a hundred times doesn’t change its color.”]

(It doesn’t, I’m sorry to say, even reliably turn them into good human beings). The fantasy that it always does, or even could, is one of the most effective curtains behind which our modern day Wizards of OZ can hide.

[GW: If you meet the Wizard on the yellow brick road, kill him.]

Anyone who tells you that Zen or any other practice will once and for all totally transform character is lying to you, and maybe to themselves as well. And it’s no good to claim transgressors aren’t “really” enlightened. Enlightenment just isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be. (I’ve met too many Zen teachers to think otherwise.)

[GW: Well what is enlightenment cracked up to be? Zen teachers with shallow enlightenment abound. Deep enlightenment can crack up a person too, when there is no good teacher around.] .

If somewhere out there, in some temple in Japan or on a mountaintop in Tibet, there is a teacher who is “really” thoroughly and totally enlightened, it almost doesn’t matter. That would make practicing Buddhism like buying a lottery ticket. One in ten million get the big jackpot.

[GW: Well, that is the story of Buddhism, and to deny it makes it questionable whether one understands the Buddha Dharma.]

No thanks.

[GW: “No thanks” to the Buddha Dharma? Wow! Okay, then, but perhaps one with this attitude should be careful about claiming to teach the Buddha Dharma. Addendum on 3-5-11: I just came across this line from Zen Master Huangbo: "Of the 1000 people or 10,000 people within this gate, only three or five get it." ]

I want to know and work with the students I have, with their occasional garden variety “kenshos,” (like my own…) and find out what this practice does and doesn’t do for people like me.

[GW: Yes that is great. There is no denying that everyone finds out for themselves what their practice does and doesn’t do for them.]

The practice of Zen is a beautiful, transformative, profound, imperfect, unreliable, corruptible, abuse-able, culturally conditioned tradition and way of life of which I am part and which I am responsible for maintaining and passing on.

[GW: The forms of practice can be “passed on” but the practice of Zen is not in any particular form more than another and so in that sense can not be passed on.]

The medium is the message:

[GW: Who says? An assertion like this calls for the counter assertion that the medium is not the message which is why they are distinguished. In Zen, the medium is horizontal like the eyes and the message is vertical like the nose and they intersect at the zero point of solitary brightness going in and out of the face.]

there is no Zen apart from Zen teachers and Zen students, doing what they do.

[GW: Even if all the Zen teachers and Zen students were to perish, there would still be Zen.

Dharma Transmission and Enlightenment

2011-02-09T09:12:00.000-08:00

A questioner asked,

i wanted to clarify something.
first there is kensho.
then there is enlightenment or completing a koan course [which i think is the ten faiths, resolute faith that does not backslide, sudden enlightenment and seeing one's true nature]. what is the equivalent in soto?
and some proportion of people [usually three or four for each teacher] who are enlightened under a master and receive dharma transmission from them.

is that right? at what point might one arouse bodhicitta?
thanks for an answers...

With respect _/|\_, this is somewhat scrambled up.

first there is kensho.

No “first” about it. In one way we can say first there is "sho" (nature, 性) as we all come from the root of our nature, then there is "kensho" (seeing the nature, 見性), when after the trip through delusion (called growing up and being socialized) we are able to see our nature, but even that conceptualization is too time bound to be grasped literally, because time itself is our nature and seeing time in its true suchness is kensho, too.

In terrms of self-consciousness, first is ignorance. For without ignorance there is no arising of the function of self-awareness or self-consciousness. There is no "one" or "first" until discrimination arises, and the acceptance of discrimination at its literal face value is what is ignorance. And ignorance is a parent to kensho, for without the ignorance of self-consciousness there is no birth of kensho.

In terms of practice, before seeing the nature (kensho) there comes all the various intimations, suggestions, and intuitions of the nature which arouse the faith to look for the nature, and these are usually called the beginnings of bodhicitta (heart-mind of enlightenment). The encouragement of bodhicitta is called the arousal of bodhicitta.

then there is enlightenment or completing a koan course [which i think is the ten faiths, resolute faith that does not backslide, sudden enlightenment and seeing one's true nature].

“Completing a koan course” is not synonymous with enlightenment, and vice versa. I’m not clear what the list (from the ten faiths to seeing one’s true nature) is supposed to represent. Is it being suggested that each of the items of this list is an equivalent of enlightenment or that the list represents the stages to enlightenment or what?

Like the word “love” that can be applied to our feeling for a piece of chocolate cake or to our most cherished intimate relationship, the word “enlightenment” has a range of application. Here is one system of four degrees of enlightenment: (1) bodhi (enlightenment), (2) sambodhi (evened or leveled enlightenment, (3) samyak sambodhi (unified and leveled enlightenment, and (4) annutara samyak sambodhi (unexcelled unified and leveled enlightenment).

Most people’s initial kensho is usually just to the first degree, but in some cases can penetrate even to the third degree, but it takes sustained repetitions of kensho to actualize the fourth degree of being unexcelled, i.e., nothing more supreme. In Buddha’s life story, this sustained repetition of kensho is told through the story of Buddha’s deepening of his awakening over several weeks immediately following his initial awakening at seeing the morning star, and in those weeks assaying how awareness functions at all levels of consciousness as his meditations ran through the various [i]jnanas[/i]. Only after this ultimate degree of bodhi realization can it be said that one has realized annutara samyak sambodhi.

It looks like you are equating inka--the certification given upon completing training to be a fully independent teacher--with enlightenment, and that is thin ice at best.

what is the equivalent in soto?

I’ll let the Soto teachers be more specific on the procedural aspects of Soto Dharma transmission, but essentially, the enlightenment in all Zen lineages is only one enlightenment, as it is the enlightenment of the one mind of true suchness, or alternatively the true suchness of the one mind. The distinctions of how the practical “churchy” affairs of “Dharma transmission” for the maintenance of the institution of Zen are concerned and conducted are of secondary importance at best, compared to having a Dharma transmission. So there are differences in how different Zen lineages bestow “Dharma transmission” for the sake of continuing their lineage, but those differences are superficial. Dharma transmission is “bestowed” by some in “pieces” or “stages” and by others all at once. Dharma transmission is a worldly expression that is for the benefit of human beings living in ignorance in order to give us the faith of bodhicitta.

The Dharma itself is not “transmitted,” in the same sense that Yunmen (J. Ummon) said “I didn’t say there is no Zen, but in all of the Great Tang there are no Zen Masters.” Though we speak of the Dharma being historically transmitted from master to master, and from country to country, the True Dharma is not something that comes and goes from India to China or across the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans. The Dharma is ubiquitous like the atmosphere, sky, Earth, or space depending on the metaphorical context.

and some proportion of people [usually three or four for each teacher] who are enlightened under a master and receive dharma transmission from them.

There are no number requirements. It is said that if a teacher finds one-half of a student to whom the Dharma is transmitted, that is enough, but of course it is better to find a single student who is twice the teacher. Some Zen masters found no one they had confidence in to transmit the Dharma so their lineage terminated with their death. Other rare teachers had 70, 100, or more Dharma transmissions. It is told that Mazu Daoyi (J. Baso Doitsu) had up to 139 Dharma heirs.

is that right? at what point might one arouse bodhicitta?

As discussed above, the bodhicitta arises spontaneously in intuitions and intimations and so the point to “arouse” it is to encourage it when it arises. Any remembrance of (i.e., turning the heart-mind toward) bodhicitta is the arousal of bodhicitta. Turning awareness toward “Who is the one remembering bodhicitta” is one style of koan method of arousing bodhicitta. Reciting the Nembutsu is another way of arousing bodhicitta as long as the focus of the recitation is turned around to “Who is the one reciting Buddha’s name.”

In the sense that enlightenment at the root is birthless, so is bodhicitta birthless at our root and thus is never lost or destroyed. But in our ignorance we forget about the root and travel the dark roads of birth and death. Any remembrance or reflection of bodhi while traveling on the dark roads is an arousal of bodhicitta.

_/|\_
Gregory

Moon Light Escapade

2011-01-22T00:05:00.000-08:00

A poem by me for you.

In the dark

The dew collects on the hundred grasses.

Then the rising full moon

Lights the garden,

Reflecting on the glistening blades

Cutting through the moon shadows.

The tips of my shoes

Are shining too.

-g

Quotes for Linji's Memorial Day

2011-01-11T19:17:00.000-08:00

Zen master Línjì Yìxuán (臨濟義玄; W–G: Lin-chi I-hsüan, J: Rinzai Gigen) died in 866 CE and January 10th is the traditional memorial day for this great teacher.

Here are some excerpts from the Record of Linji. One of the central images that Linji uses is "solitary brightness" (孤明); it is used to describe our Buddha nature in a personal and intimate way to prevent the externalization or objectification of our true suchness, that is to avoid dividing our true suchness into internal and external or subject and object. Another such technique the master used to turn students from objectification is the well known Linji admonition to "kill the Buddha."

The translation is mine.

Said on ascending the hall, "Upon the ball of red flesh there is a singular true person without rank. It perpetually goes in and goes out of the gates of the faces of you people of various classes. To those who have not yet borne witness, observe, observe.”
At the time there was a monk who came forward and asked, "So what is the true person without rank?”
The master descended from the meditation dais, grabbed and stopped him, and said, “Speak! Speak!”
As that monk was deciding what to discuss, the master opened his hold and said, “What a dry shit-stick is the true person without rank.” Then he returned to the Ten-foot Square (i.e., the abbot’s room).

"Greatly Virtuous Ones, your ancestors knew that the fundamental person who receives and plays with light and shadow is the root source of all the Buddhas and every place is a lodging place for Wanderers in the Way to return to. Indeed your physical body (rupakaya) of the Four Great Elements cannot listen to the Dharma and understand and explain the Dharma. The spleen, stomach, liver, or gall bladder cannot listen to the Dharma and understand and explain the Dharma. Empty space cannot listen to the Dharma and understand and explain the Dharma. Indeed, what listens to the Dharma and understands and explains the Dharma? Indeed before your eyes, all the way through to the bottom, is the solitary brightness that never has one particular piece of form. Indeed, this is the one who listens to the Dharma and understands and explains the Dharma."

"Wanderers in the Way, as it is now, the solitary brightness before the eyes goes all the way through the earth to the one who is listening. This person in every place is not hindered and moves unobstructed through the ten directions and three realms by oneself. When one enters every situation the differences are not able to turn around or change one. The one realm that consists of the inner space thoroughly enters the Dharma Realm. Running into Buddhas, one talks to Buddhas; running into ancestors, one talks to ancestors; running into hungry ghosts, one talks to hungry ghosts. Turning towards every place, hiking the lands of the nation teaching and converting the many beings, yet one is not once separate for a single thought moment (ksana). In accord with the place, the clear and clean light penetrates the ten directions, and the 10,000 things (dharmas) are One Suchness."

"Wanderers in the Way, true love is a great difficulty; the Buddha Dharma is a deep mystery. If you are able to understand, you are capable in every situation. This mountain monk, in the past, for today, and in the future speaks to lay it bare. Those who study, after all, are not at the meaning. 1,000 times, 10,000 times, the bottom of the feet step to ford across the blackness that darkens situations. Without one particular piece of form, all the way through is solitary brightness. When the faith of students is inadequate, then they turn to the names and phrases of superior beings to understand. The years mount up to half a hundred, and they only manage to draw near to home carrying a dead corpse from shelter to shelter traveling under heaven. Depend on it; there is a day that demands the money for their straw sandals."

"Wanderers in the Way, as you long to obtain the Dharma of Suchness, only do not give birth to doubts. By the standard of expansion, it pervades the entire Dharma Realm (Dharmadhatu). By the standard of contraction, a strand of hair cannot stand. All the way through the solitary brightness has never in the past lacked a little. The eye does not see it; the ear does not hear it. What object can be aroused? A man of old said, “The standard of saying it resembles a singular object is not on the mark.” You should only look into your own home (family, lineage). What more is there? Speech also is without end. Each touches power by oneself. Cherish it."

Dharma Currents #1: Introduction to the Middle Way

2011-01-01T10:56:00.000-08:00

With the new year, I want to start blogging, hopefully more consistently at regular intervals, on a recurring theme that may be broadly characterized as "Buddhism in the Current Age of Scientism" or "Dharma Currents" for short to play on the stream imagery. The idea is to explore how Buddha Dharma is relevant to today's world, including the political landscape, that is, a world that seems too fixated and caught between the horns of the polarity of religious theism and scientist athesim.

I see Buddhism as the third way in its traditional sense of the Middle Way as the path of synthetic resolution of the polarized mindset that forces our thinking about life into an either-or frame work. The human mind every where is subject to the mind's inherently polarizing influence in the very structure and function of consciousness, but the Western World's frame of reference, of Greco-Roman-European derivation, for religion and philosophy is bound up in the historically relevant context of the structures of opposition that have grown out of the theism-monotheism-atheism streams of thought. Today the West is still under the spell of theism so that people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris are viewed as "the three horsemen of atheism" traveling widely to preach the virtues of atheism and the vices of theism.

There are many people, and I am one, who feel dissatisfied with the dialogue as it is framed and see the debate as caught between a rock and a hard place. Buddhism, however, naturally flows between the rock of theism and the hard place of atheism, and for those in Western culture who see the barrenness and inadequacy of both theism and atheism, Buddhism is the natural solution to rescue spirituality from the theism of modern religions and to rescue rationality from the atheism of scientism. It is this recognition of the position that Buddhism takes in this debate that led Albert Einstein, the preemeninant physical scientist of the 20th century, to declare that Buddhism is the historically closest religion to his conception of the cosmic relition that humankind is yearning for.

There is a frequently cited quote attributed to Einstein that says,

The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense of arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. . . Buddhism answers this description. . . If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.

This quote is found in several slight variations and is sometimes challenged as legitimate because its source has not been identified. However, if it is not a direct quote, then I take it as an accurate paraphrase at least, based on the following excerpt taken from Einstein's article printed in the New York Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4 which contains all the important particulars of the condensed quote:

"Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling. It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic conception of God corresponding to it.
"The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a much stronger element of this.
“The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man’s image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another."

The essential points of Einstein's view of a science that has not left spiritual values or appreciation behind include (1) no dogma, (2) no anthropomorphic God, (3) a cosmic religious feeling, (4) experiencing the universe as a single significant whole or meaningful unity, (5) leading to freedom from the prison of individualism.

It should be clear to the honest observer that neither modern theistic religions nor modern atheistic scientism fit this bill of particulars. However, Zen Buddhism does fit Einstein's bill in every particular.

Similarly, Carl G. Jung, the Einstein of Psychology in the 20th century, also found kindred spirit with Zen in his scientific inquiry of the mind in which he discovered again and again that any attempt to remove the spiritual values from science were bound to fail and create only a dead dogma. When Jung was near death he was reading Charles Luk's Ch'an and Zen Teachings: First Series in which the first section presents discourses of Zen Master Hsu Yun (Empty Cloud). Jung directed his personal assistant and friend Dr. Marie-Louse von Aranz to write to the author. In the letter (dated September 12, 1961) von Aranz wrote

"He was enthusiastic.... When he read what Hsu Yun said, he sometimes felt as if he himself could have said exactly this! It was just it!."

Buddhism, and most essentially Zen Buddhism, is "just it!" when it comes to expressing the comprehension of the reality of life and death in a manner that is not inconsistent with the most insightful scientists of the physical and psychological sciences of the 20th century. However, in the later half of the 20th century, science itslef has become entraped in a form of dogma that has become scientism as expressed through the anti-theist preaching of the above name three horsemen of atheism, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris. This view of scientism is scientific materialism in which the literalized objectification of the material world is taken to a limit of phyical appearances but no further. There are, to be sure, still scientists today who, like Einstein and Jung, do not subscribe to this atheistic scientism, however, they are hard pressed to get recognition beyond the walls of their academic towers, while the mainstream media and popular culture claim for their own a scientism of physical things sanitized of all spiritual or psychological dimension.

For people of the West who see the superstious silliness of anthropomorphic gods and their dogmas, yet who also sense the irrationality of an anti-spiritual scientism with its dogma of atheistic materialism, Zen Buddhism provides a context and method for discovering the real and profound dimension of a religion of meaningful unity liberating us from the prison of our individual and separate existence.

BOYCOTT AMAZON!

2010-12-01T21:18:00.000-08:00

With the news that Amazon.com has kow-towed to jingoist Joe Liberman and disassociated itself from any connection to Wikileaks, it is time to boycott Amazon.com. An organization as strong and successful as Amazon that is so afraid of a fascist like Liberman doesn't deserve any support from the progressive community. If you ever wondered how the Communist scare and Joe McCarthy got started, this is how. If people don't stand up to the anti-democracy forces in our own government then people like Joe Liberman are able to use their fascist fear mongering to undermine our democratic freedoms. Without the ability of heros like the whistleblowers who give us the truth, we will not have either liberty or democracy. What we have learned from the Wikileaked documents is that it is our own government that is the anti-democratic global force.

I went to Amazon.com to terminate my account and give notice that I will be boycotting Amazon until I hear that they have changed their policy about Wikileaks. However, the first thing I discovered is that Amazon does not make customer feedback easy. I could not find any "contact" links prominently displayed on my account pages. I couldn't find any way to notify Amazon about my dissatisfaction with their policy against Wikileaks, and I couldn't find any way to terminate my account. If you know of how to terminate an Amazon account please post it here to share with others.

Thanks.

P.S.
Okay, I found the contact us link on the "help" page. If you are an Amazon customer you can contact them through this link. Here's the message I sent them.

I want to terminate my Amazon account because of Amazon's policy of bowing to Joe Liberman's anti-democratic scare tactics and because Amazon is not supporting Wikileaks in its time of need.. Wikileaks deserves a medal not to be removed from the cloud. Please tell me how I can terminate my Amazon account because from now on until I have heard that Amazon has changed its policy on supporting freedom of information I will no longer support Amazon.

They say they will respond within 12 hours so I'll post their response when I get it.

The Platform Sutra, 1st Section of Chapter 10

2010-09-12T12:18:00.000-07:00

Here's my recent translation of the first section of Chapter 10 of the Platform Sutra of Huineng. This section is especially noteworthy because it is an outline instructing how to explain Zen. Since at the time there was nothing known as the "Chan" (Zen) school or lineage, Huineng called his school "this Dharma Gate."

Huineng's direct teaching about the functioning of the opposites as mutually causative and conditioned became highly condensed and concentrated in the Zen school through the interactions of questions and answers. Huineng's admonition to "not leave your own nature" when responding to student's questions created the context in which the Zen master's pithy and brief responses directly pointed from the condition of one-sidedness inherent in the student’s question to the nondual nature. The recorded collections of these interactions became taken up by others for inquiry into the one-sidedness of mind that each interaction pivoted upon and is how koans came into usage as a methodology.

_/|\_
Gregory

Platform Sutra of the Dharma Treasure of the Great Master Sixth Ancestor
六祖大師法寶壇經

Tenth: Handing Down Instructions

The master one day summoned the people of the gate, of the rank of Fahai, Zhicheng, Fada, Shenhui, Zhichang, Zhitong, Zhiche, Zhidao, Fazhen, and Faru, saying, “Your rank is not the same as the rest of the people. After my nirvana, each [of you] will become the teacher of one region. I now teach you to explain the Dharma, so the lineage does not lose the root.

“First, [you] must raise the three sections of the Dharma Gate, [next] take up the functions of the 36 paired opposites arising and sinking, then leave both extremes. In explaining everything, do not leave your own nature.

“If there is a person asking you about the Dharma put forth words to exhaust the polarity, and in all cases take hold of the Dharma of the paired opposites and the mutual causation of their coming and going, getting to the very bottom and wiping out the Dharma of duality, while still being without leaving or dwelling.

“The three sections of the Gate of the Dharma are the shadows, realms, and entrances. The shadows are the Five Skandhas, one by one: form (rupa), feelings (vedana), conceptions (samjna), doings (samskara), and consciousness (vijnana). The entrances are the Twelve Ayatanas: the external Six Dusts are, one by one, color (rupa), sound, fragrance, taste, touch, and thing and the internal Six Gates are, one by one, the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and idea. The realms are the 18 Dhatus, which are the Six Dusts, the Six Gates and the Six Consciousnesses.

“The ability of one’s own nature to contain the 10,000 things is called the containing Storehouse Consciousness (alayavijnana). If considering and measuring arise, then consciousness evolves and comes into being as the six consciousnesses (vijnanas) emerging through the six gates viewing the six dusts. Thus are the 18 Realms in all cases following from the function of the arising of one’s own nature. If one’s own nature is wrong, then 18 wrongs arise. If one’s own nature is right, then 18 rights arise. If it is the function of evil, then it is the function of the multitude of beings; if the function of virtue, then it is the function of Buddha. What category is the cause of the functioning? The cause is that one’s own nature has the Dharma of paired-opposites.

“In external phenomena of the insentient, the five paired-opposites are:
the pair of heaven and earth;
the pair of the sun and moon;
the pair of the bright and the dark;
the pair of the shady and the sunny (yin and yang, negative and positive); and
the pair of water and fire.
These are the five paired opposites.

“In the language of the characteristics of things (dharmalaksana), the twelve paired-opposites are:
the pair of language and things (words and thingness);
the pair of existence and non-existence (having and being without);
the pair of having form and being without form;
the pair of having characteristics and being without characteristics;
the pair of having leakage and being without leakage;
the pair of form and emptiness;
the pair of motion and stillness;
the pair of clean and muddy;
the pair of the worldly and the sacred;
the pair of monastics and laity;
the pair of old and young; and
the pair of great and small.
These are the twelve paired opposites.

“In the arising and functioning of one’s own-nature, the nineteen paired-opposites are:
the pair of long and short;
the pair of wrong and right;
the pair of stupidity and wisdom;
the pair of foolishness and intelligence;
the pair of disturbance and samadhi;
the pair of kindness and malice;
the pair of morality (sila) and wrongdoings;
the pair of straight and crooked;
the pair of true and false;
the pair of rugged and even;
the pair of afflictions (klesa) and enlightenment (bodhi);
the pair of permanence and impermanence;
the pair of compassion and cruelty;
the pair of happiness and anger;
the pair of giving and stinginess;
the pair of advance and retreat;
the pair of birth and cessation;
the pair of the Dharma body (Dharmakaya) and the physical body (Rupuakaya); and
the pair of the transforming body (Nirmanakaya) and the reward body (Sambhogakaya). These are the 19 paired-opposites.”

In the words of the master, “If one can untie and use this Dharma of the 36 paired-opposites, then it is the Way that threads though the Dharma of every sutra, and [one’s] going out and entering are then separate from both extremes.

"In the active functioning of your own nature and in conversations with people, while outwardly in appearances, separate from appearances; while inwardly in emptiness, separate from emptiness. If you wholly attach to appearances (i.e., the view of materialism), then your perverted views broaden. If you wholly grasp emptiness (i.e., the view of nihilism), then your ignorance broadens.

"People who grasp emptiness have slandered the Sutras [by saying] “direct words do not use written words.” Since they say “Do not use written words” these people too are not united with [their own] speech, simply as this speech then is the appearance of written words. Again, to say, “The straight Way is not established by written words,” then this “not established” are both words and are written words. On seeing a person who explains, then immediately they slander the other’s words as being attached to written words. You who are ranked [as Dharma heirs] must know self-delusion like this is able repeatedly to slander the Buddha’s Sutras. Do not desire to slander the Sutras; the hindrances of the sin are countless.

“If [one] attaches to external appearances and then seeks the truth in the activity of things, or [one] widely establishes places of the Way (i.e., temples, monasteries, etc.) and explains the mistakes and suffering of existence and nonexistence, people who are like this are unable to see the nature for accumulated aeons.

“Yet to listen to and take refuge in the practice of cultivating the Dharma, while [you] also cannot not think of the 100 objects, nevertheless, in regard to the Way is an obstruction of the nature. If [you] listen to explanations and do not cultivate, [you] cause people to flip-out and give birth to perverted thoughts. Yet taking refuge in the practice of cultivating the Dharma without dwelling in appearances (without stopping appearances) is giving (dana) of the Dharma.

“You who are ranked [as Dharma heirs], if you awaken in accord with this explanation; in accord with this functioning; in accord with this practice; and in accord with these doings; then you do not lose the root of the lineage.

“If there is a person asking you about a meaning, and asks about having one, go to the paired opposite of being without one; if asking about being without one, go to the paired opposite of having one. If one asks about the worldly, use the paired opposite of the saintly; if asking about the saintly use the paired opposite of the worldly. The mutual causation of the Way of dualities, gives birth to the meaning of the Middle Way. So, for a single question, a single pair of opposites, and for other questions the single [pair] that accords with this fashion, then you do not lose the principle.

“Suppose there is a person who asks, ‘What is taken for and called darkness?’ Reply and say, ‘Light is the proximate cause and darkness is the contributory cause. When light is ended, then there is darkness. By the means of light, darkness manifests; by the means of darkness, light manifests. Their coming and going are mutually proximate causes and become the meaning of the Middle Way.’ Other questions are without exception like this. You who are ranked among the descendents transmitting the Dharma, by relying on this teaching of turning around the characteristics you do not lose the taste of the lineage.”

[End of first section of Chapter 10.]

Yongjia's Song of Confirming the Way

2010-08-28T16:27:00.000-07:00

Here are several versions of the opening lines of Yongjia Xuanjue’s “Song of Confirming the Way” (A.K.A. “Song of Enlightenment,” 證道歌, C. Zhèngdào gē, J. Shodoka,) comparing my translation with six others.

The title is interesting to me, especially because I don’t understand how or why it has been translated as “The Song of Enlightenment” and become most widely known in English with that title. It may be D.T. Suzuki’s responsibility as this is the title he used in his book Manual of Zen Buddhism. Suzuki often took such liberties with translating text in order to achieve his proselytizing goal of making the Dharma accessible for English speakers. The character for enlightenment or awakening (覺) is in the text but not in the title. The title begins with the character 證 which means “to confirm, certify, testify, evidence, or prove,” and any of these terms are valid translations. The second character is 道 which means “the Way, the Tao” and appears in the opening lines with the phase “person of the Way” or “man of Tao” etc. The third character 歌 means “sing, song. chant, praise,” etc. Because Yongjia’s verse is not only about his own testimony of the Way confirming the Way for us, but also about how each of us can confirm the Way for ourselves, I have chosen “Confirming the Way” as the best translation for 證道.

Yongjia Xuanjue (Yung-chia Hsuan-chueh, J. Yoka Genkaku)( d. 713) was a dharma successor in both Tiantai and Zen lineages. He was heir to the Dharma of Tiankong, the 7th Ancestor of Tiantai, and heir to the Dharma of Huineng, the 6th Ancestor of Zen. He had mastered the meditation practice of samatha-vipassana (stopping and insight)(C. zhi guan, J. shikan) in the Tiantai lineage. After having a profound awakening when reading the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, he then completely realized the true suchness of mind with his inquiry of the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra. He was advised to get confirmation of his awakening by visiting the 6th Ancestor of Zen, Huineng, and he did so. His encounter with Huineng is memorialized in the Platform Sutra of Huineng where it is related that Huineng confirmed his awakening and invited him to stay overnight at the temple of Caoxi. In Zen circles he was thus known as “the overnight enlightened one.”

There are no stanza breaks in the original Chinese, so each of the translators inserts breaks where is seems appropriate to them for the ease of the reader. Some of these ancient verses have an obvious format such as couplets or quatrains, but I don’t see an obvious structure to the “Song,” so any breaks must be inserted based on the content and not the structure. It seems to me like the stanzas vary into 2, 4 or 6 lines. Since the different translators vary the stanza lengths, for now I have not inserted any stanza breaks in my translation here, leaving it to the reader to decide where breaks should occur if at all.

Here are the opening lines in Chinese [from T48n2014_p0395c06(00)] used for my translation.

永嘉證道歌
唐慎水沙門玄覺撰
君不見。
絕學無為閒道人。
不除妄想不求真。
無明實性即佛性。
幻化空身即法身。
法身覺了無一物。
本源自性天真佛。
五陰浮雲空去來。
三毒水泡虛出沒。
證實相無人法。
剎那滅卻阿鼻業。
若將妄語誑眾生。
自招拔舌塵沙劫。
頓覺了如來禪。
六度萬行體中圓。
夢裏明明有六趣。
覺後空空無大千。

#1. Trans by Gregory Wonderwheel

“Yongjia’s Song of Confirming the Way”

Composed by Sramana Xuanjue of Shenshui of the Tang

Don’t you see?
The person of the Way who renounces study and is without activity and idleness,
Does not get rid of erroneous concepts and does not seek truth.
The real nature of ignorance is immediately the Buddha nature.
The empty body of changing illusions is immediately the Dharmakaya
Complete awakening to the Dharmakaya is without a single object.
The root source of one’s own nature is the true Buddha of heaven.
The drifting clouds of the five skandhas emptily come and go,
The water bubbles of the three poisons vainly arise and sink,
Confirming that the character of reality is without person or thing
Is the state that extinguishes the karma of falling into the Avici Hell.
If this is using false words to deceive the multitude of beings
Then by myself, I call for pulling out my tongue for eons of dust and sand.
In the Tathagata Zen of complete sudden awakening,
The essence of the six paramitas and the 10,000 practices are within its fullness.
Inside of a dream, it is clearly clear there are six destinies.
After awakening, in empty emptiness there is no Great Chiliocosm.

#2. Trans. by D.T. Suzuki, in Manual of Zen Buddhism, from http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/mzb/mzb04.htm

YOKA DAISHI'S "SONG OF ENLIGHTENMENT"

1. Knowest thou that leisurely philosopher who has gone beyond learning and is not exerting himself in anything?
He neither endeavours to avoid idle thoughts nor seeks after the Truth;
[For he knows that] ignorance in reality is the Buddha-nature,
[And that] this empty visionary body is no less than the Dharma-body.

2. When one knows what the Dharma-body is, there is not an object [to be known as such],
The source of all things, as far as its self-nature goes, is the Buddha in his absolute aspect;
The five aggregates (skandha) are like a cloud floating hither and thither with no fixed purpose,
The three poisons (klesa) are like foams appearing and disappearing as it so happens to them.

3. When Reality is attained, it is seen to be without an ego-substance and devoid of all forms of objectivity,
And thereby all the karma which leads us to the lowest hell is instantly wiped out;
Those, however, who cheat beings with their false knowledge,
Will surely see their tongues pulled out for innumerable ages to come.

4. In one whose mind is at once awakened to [the intent of] the Tathagata-dhyana
The six paramitas and all the other merits are fully matured;
While in a world of dreams the six paths of existence arc vividly traced,
But after the awakening there is vast Emptiness only and not even a great chiliocosm exists.

#3. Trans by Lu K’uan Yu (Charles Luk), from Chan and Zen Teachings, Third Series, p. 116-118.

“Yung Chia’s Song of Enlightenment”

Have you not seen a man of Tao at his ease
In his non-active and beyond learning states
Who neither suppresses thoughts nor seeks the real? To him
The real nature of ignorance is Buddhata
And the non-existent boy of illusion is Dharmakaya.
After his awakening, his Dharma body owns not anything,
For each thing in essence comes from his true self-natured Buddha;
The five aggregates are just floating clouds that aimlessly come and go,
While the three poisons are but bubbles that appear and vanish.

When the real is attained, neither ego nor dharma exist,
And in a moment the avici karma is eradicated
If knowingly I lie to deceive living beings, my tongue
Will be pulled out for aeons uncountable as dust and sand.

When at once awakened, the Tathagata’s Ch’an is perfected in self-substance
By any of the six paramitas or myriad methods of salvation.
When dreaming, clearly there are six worlds of existence,
When awake, not even the great chilocosm can be found.

#4. Trans. by Robert Aiken Roshi, from http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/ZenPages/Daily-Zen-Sutras.html#SHODO

“Song of Enlightenment”

There is the leisurely one,
Walking the Tao, beyond philosophy,
Not avoiding fantasy, not seeking truth.
The real nature of ignorance is Buddha nature itself;
The empty delusory body is the very body of the Dharma.

When the Dharma body awakens completely,
There is nothing at all.
The source of our self nature
Is the Buddha of innocent truth.
Mental and physical reactions come and go
Like clouds in the empty sky;
Greed, hatred, and ignorance appear and disappear
Like bubbles on the surface of the sea.*

When we realize actuality,
There is no distinction between mind and thing
And the path to hell instantly vanishes.
If this is a lie to fool the world,
My tongue may be cut out forever.*

Once we awaken to the Tathagata Zen,
The six noble deeds and the ten thousand good actions
Are already complete within us.
In our dream we see the six levels of illusion clearly;
After we awaken the whole universe is empty.

#5, Trans by International Institute For The Translation of Buddhist Texts, Dharma Realm Buddhist University, From http://online.sfsu.edu/~rone/Buddhism/VenHua/Song%20of%20Enlightenment.htm [The original is in all caps, so I haven’t put it into regular case not knowing where they would use initial capitals.]

“SONG OF ENLIGHTENMENT”

HAVE YOU NOT SEEN PEOPLE WHOSE STUDY HAS ENDED, WHO DO NOTHING, WHO ABIDE IN THE WAY AT EASE?
THEY DO NOT BANISH FALSE THOUGHTS, THEY DO NOT SEEK THE TRUTH,
THE TRUE NATURE OF IGNORANCE IS THE BUDDHA NATURE;
THIS EMPTY BODY, AN ILLUSORY TRANSFORMATION, IS THE DHARMA BODY.
IN THE DHARMA BODY'S ENLIGHTENMENT, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE THING;
AT ITS SOURCE THE INHERENT NATURE IS THE BUDDHA OF DIVINE INNOCENCE,
THE FIVE SKANDHAS, LIKE FLOATING CLOUDS, EMPTILY COME AND GO;
THE THREE POISONS, LIKE BUBBLES OF WATER, RISE AND SINK, UNREAL.

WHEN ONE IS CERTIFIED TO THE CHARACTERISTIC OF REALITY,
THERE ARE NO PEOPLE OR DHARMAS,
THE KARMA OF THE AVICHI IS CANCELLED IN A KSHANA.
IF I WERE DECEIVING LIVING BEINGS WITH UNTRUE WORDS,
I'D INVITE UPON MYSELF THE RIPPING OUT OF TONGUES FOR AEONS AS MANY AS DUST AND SAND.

WITH SUDDEN ENLIGHTENED UNDERSTANDING OF THE DHYANA OF THE THUS COME ONES,
THE SIX CROSSINGS OVER AND TEN THOUSAND PRACTICES ARE COMPLETE IN SUBSTANCE.
IN A DREAM, VERY CLEARLY, THERE ARE SIX DESTINIES;
AFTER ENLIGHTENMENT, COMPLETELY EMPTY, THERE IS NO UNIVERSE.

#6. Trans at Dragon Flower Zen Meditation, from http://www.dragonflower.org/song.html

“The Song of Enlightenment”

Do you not know the ease of the man of the Way who has gone beyond learning, and whose state is "non-action",
Who neither suppresses thoughts, nor seeks the "Truth?"
To him the reality of ignorance is the Buddha Nature;
The empty illusory is the Dharmakaya.

When one who is awakened to the Dharma body, there are no objects;
The essence of all things comes from the self nature Buddha!
The Five Aggregates mere floating clouds aimlessly coming and Going;
The Three Poisons bubbles that appear and disappear.

When Reality is attained, there is neither ego nor object,
And within that instant, the karma of eternal suffering is wiped away.
If this is a lie to deceive living beings,
For ages as numberless as dust, let my own tongue be plucked out.

When the mind is once awakened to the Ch'an of the Tathagata,
The Six Paramitas are also fully perfect, as are the Ten Thousand Expedient Means .
In dreams, the Six Realms are vivid;
When one awakens, not even a Universe of Universes can be found.

#7. Trans by Yasuda Joshu roshi and Anzan Hoshin roshi, from http://www.wwzc.org/translations/shodoka.htm

“Shodoka: Song of Freedom”

Have you ever seen one of the Way?

Beyond action and beyond learning,
one is at ease,
not struggling against delusion
or grasping after the truth.

One sees the nature of ignorance
to be itself Essential Awareness,
and the illusion of one’s own body
is the Realm of Reality.

Completely realizing
the Realm of Reality to be objectless,
one finds oneself the source of all things
and one’s own nature to be Awake Awareness.

The five aggregates arise and decay
like aimless clouds,
the three distorted orientations come and go
like bubbles on water.

Realizing Suchness, neither self nor things exist;
in one moment cause and effect are liberated.

If anything I say is untrue
may my tongue be pulled out for countless eons.

In a single moment of direct awakening
to the Zen of Reality as a continuous presencing,
the six perfections and countless skillful means
are complete.

The six realms of existence are a dream,
in waking they are nowhere to be found.

Zen Words on Words

2010-08-19T15:15:00.000-07:00

Here's a selection of words on words from various sources including Sutras, Treatises, and koans.

Treatise on the Awakening of Faith in the Great Vehicle
(Mahayana-Sraddhotpada Shastra 大乘起信論 Ta-ch'eng ch'i-hsin lun)
Taisho Tripitaka Vol. 32, No. 1666
Chinese Translation by Paramartha
Translated to English from the Chinese by A. Gregory Wonderwheel

[I. The Two Doors of the One Mind]

The basis of the Dharma of the One Heart-Mind has two kinds of doors. How are the two stated? That which is first is the door of the Heart-Mind’s True Suchness (bhûtatathatâ). That which is second is the door of the Heart-Mind’s birth and death. Indeed, the two kinds of doors, each and entirely, fully include all things (sarvadharma). How is this meaning stated? Because it is considered that the two doors are not mutually separable.

[A. The First Door of the Heart-Mind’s True Suchness]

That which is the Heart-Mind’s True Suchness, then, is the great universal characteristic and essential Dharma Door of the One Dharma-realm (dharmadhâtu). That which is designated the Nature of the Heart-Mind is not born and does not die. There is differentiation of all the various things only by relying on deluded thinking. If one is free from deluding thinking, then one is without the whole objective realm of appearances. This is because all things have already come from the root free from the characteristics of verbal expressions, free from the characteristics of names and words, and free from the characteristics of the mind’s cognition, and in the ultimate equality they are without the transformations of existence and are unable to be destroyed. Because they are only the One Heart-Mind, they are called True Suchness. By considering all verbal expressions to be relative they are called unreal, yet because they follow deluded thinking one is unable to get it.
In that which is the true suchness of words, likewise, there are no characteristics of existence. Designating the limit of verbal expressions causes words to banish words. Here, in the embodiment of True Suchness there is no existence able to be banished, because of considering all things as completely True; likewise nothing is able to be established because of considering all things in all cases as identical with Suchness. One should know that because all things are unable to be explained and unable to be thought they are called the activity of True Suchness.

The Lankavatara Sutra
A Mahayana Text
Translated from the original Sanskrit by
DAISETZ TEITARO SUZUKI

XLII
Further, Mahamati said: Blessed One, is it not because of the reality of words that all things are? If not for words, Blessed One, there would be no rising of things. Hence, Blessed One, the existence of all things is by reason of the reality of words.
Said the Blessed One: Even when there are no [corresponding] objects there are words, Mahamati; for instance, the hare's horns, the tortoise's hair, a barren woman's child, etc. (105)—they are not at all visible in the world but the words are; Mahamati, they are neither entities nor nonentities but expressed in words. If, Mahamati, you say that because of the reality of words the objects are, this talk lacks in sense. Words are not known in all the Buddha-lands; words, Mahamati, are an artificial creation. In some Buddha-lands ideas are indicated by looking steadily, in others by gestures, in still others by a frown, by the movement of the eyes, by laughing, by yawning, or by the clearing of the throat, or by recollection, or by trembling. Mahamati, for instance, in the worlds of the Steady-Looking and in those of Exquisite Odours, and in the Buddha-land of Samantabhadra the Tathagata, Arhat, Fully-Enlightened One, the Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas by steadily looking without a wink attain the recognition of all things as unborn and also various most excellent Samadhis. For this reason, Maha- [92] mati, the validity of all things has nothing to do with the reality of words. It is observed, Mahamati, even in this world that in the kingdom of such special beings as ants, bees, etc., they carry on their work without words.

LXI
Again Mahamati said: It is said by the Blessed One that from the night of the Enlightenment till the night of the Parinirvana, the Tathagata (143) in the meantime has not uttered even a word, nor will he ever utter; for not-speaking is the Buddha's speaking. According to what deeper sense is it that not-speaking is the Buddha's speaking?
The Blessed One replied: By reason of two things of the deeper sense, Mahamati, this statement is made. What are the two things: They are the truth of self-realisation and an eternally-abiding reality. According to these two things of the deeper sense the statement is made by me. Of what deeper sense is the truth of self-realisation? What has been realised by the Tathagatas, that is my own realisation, in which there is neither decreasing nor increasing; for the realm of self-realisation is free from words and discriminations, having nothing to do with dualistic terminology.
LXV

Further, Mahamati, the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva who is conversant with words and meaning observes that words are neither different nor not-different from meaning and that meaning stands in the same relation to words. If, Mahamati, meaning is different from words, it will not be made manifest by means of words; but meaning is entered into by words as things [are revealed] by a lamp. It is, Mahamati, like a man carrying a lamp to look after his property. [By means of this light] he can say: This is my property and so is kept in this place. Just so, Mahamati, by means of the lamp of words and speech originating from discrimination, the Bodhisattva-Mahasattvas can enter into the exalted state of self-realisation which is free from speech-discrimination.

Blue Cliff Record
Translated by A. Gregory Wonderwheel

Case 65. One Outside the Way Questions Buddha

Raised: One outside the Way questioned Buddha, “I do not question with words; I do not question without words.”
The World Honored One was respectful a long time.
The one outside the Way said in praise, “The World Honored One’s great compassion and great pity have opened my clouds of confusion and allowed me to gain entry.”
After the one outside the Way departed, Ananda questioned Buddha, “What did the one outside the Way have in the place of evidence and accordingly the words ‘gaining entry’?”
Buddha said, “Like a fine horse of the world, he sees the shadow of the whip and goes accordingly.”

Blue Cliff Record
Translated by A. Gregory Wonderwheel

Case 84 Vimalakirti Sutra’s Non-Duality
摩經不二

[Yuanwu’s] Appended pointer says:

Just say, does this person also possess eye(s) or not? If you are able to judge this person, then I approve that you have come to personally see the people of old.

Raised:

Vimalakirti asked Manjusri, “How do those ranked as being bodhisattvas enter the Dharma gate of non-duality?”
Manju(sri) said, “So this is my idea, in everything (sarvadharma) to be without words, without explaining, without instructing, and without knowledge, and to leave aside all questions and answers, is the act of entering the Dharma gate of non-duality.”
Thereat, Manjusri asked Vimalakirti, “Each and every one of those equally ranked and myself have explained already. You who are virtuous and equally ranked explain, how do those ranked as being bodhisattvas enter the Dharma gate of non-duality?”

Xuedou said, “What did Vimala(kirti) say?”
Repeating he said, “Investigate and expose completely!”

Gateless Checkpoint
Translated by A. Gregory Wonderwheel

Case 6. The World Honored One Picks a Flower

The World Honored One a long time ago at a convocation on top of Spirit Mountain* picked up a flower and showed it to the multitude. At that time all the multitude were thus silent. Only Arya Kashyapa gave a broad smile and laughed a little.
The World Honored One said, “I possess the storehouse of the correct Dharma eye, the wonderful heart-mind of Nirvana, the formless true form, the subtle Dharma gate, not established by written words, transmitted separately outside the teaching. I hand it over and entrust these encouraging words to Kashyapa.”

Wumen says: Golden-faced Gautama acted audaciously. He shelved the good to be cheap. He hung a sheep’s head and sold dog meat. How many are ready to say this is peculiar? But supposing at that place and time the great multitude had all laughed, how could he have put forth the storehouse of the correct Dharma eye in a living transmission? If Kashyapa was not caused to laugh, how could he have put forth the storehouse of the correct Dharma eye in a living transmission? If you say the storehouse of the correct Dharma eye can be imparted, then the golden-faced old mister gives deceiving advise at the village gate. If you say it is not imparted, then verily how can it be that Kashyapa alone was approved?

The Ode says:
As the flower was picked and raised,
The python’s tail was already revealed;
When Kashyapa cracked a smile,
People and gods [devas] were collected in the net.

[* Spirit Mountain is the euphemistic name for Vulture Peak (Mt. Gridhrakuta) where the Buddha taught several important sutras including the Heart Sutra and the Lotus Sutra. In Chinese lore the vulture is sometimes called the “spirit eagle” because it eats the dead, and a sort of euphemistic tradition developed of calling the site “Spirit Mountain” instead of Spirit Eagle Mountain or Vulture Peak.]

The Platform Sutra of the Dharma Treasure of the Great Master Sixth Ancestor
Translated by A. Gregory Wonderwheel

Chapter 10 Handing Down Instructions

"In the active functioning of your own nature and in conversations with people, while outwardly in appearances separate from appearances; while inwardly in emptiness separate from emptiness. If you wholly attach to appearances (i.e., hold materialist views), then your perverted views broaden. If you wholly grasp emptiness (i.e., hold a nihilist view), then your non-illumination (ignorance) broadens.

"People who grasp emptiness have slandered the Sutras (by saying) “straight words do not use written words.” Since they say “Do not use written words” these people too are not united with (their own) speech, simply as this speech then is the appearance of written words. Again, to say, “The straight Way is not established by written words,” then this “not established” are both words and are written words. On seeing a person who explains, then immediately they slander the other’s words as being attached to written words. You who are ranked (as Dharma heirs) must know self-delusion like this is able repeatedly to slander the Buddha’s Sutras. Do not desire to slander the Sutras; the hindrances of the sin are countless.

“Sayings and Doings of Pai-chang” (Baizhang)
Translated by Thomas Cleary

You must discern the words of the complete teaching and the incomplete teaching; you must discern prohibitive words and non prohibitive words; you must discern living and dead words; you must discern medicine and disease words; you must discern words of negative and positive metaphor; you must discern generalizing and particularizing words. (p. 37)

From The Record of Linji (Lin-Chi Lu).
Translated from the Chinese by Irmgard Schloegl

"Followers of the Way, do not seek for anything in written words. You will tire your heart and inhale icy air without profit."

Review of "Inquiry Into the Origin of Humanity"

2010-07-17T21:49:00.000-07:00

Review of Inquiry Into the Origin of Humanity, translated with commentary by Peter N. Gregory.

Peter Gregory’s book, Inquiry Into the Origin of Humanity, has a wealth of information about the Buddhist and Chinese cultural context in which Guifeng Zongmi (Gregory uses the Wade-Giles form Kuei-feng Tsung-mi)(780-841) wrote his famous treatise. As truth in advertising, Gregory informs the reader that the book is intended for college students already acquainted with Buddhism or Chinese thought and for scholars of other fields. His goal is to use the framework of Zongmi’s treatise to construct a general introduction to Chinese Buddhist thought. As such, Gregory generally succeeds in his aim of presenting explanatory material to the academically minded who are interested in Buddhism. Though not intended for those with no background in either Buddhism or Chinese thought, I think Gregory’s commentary gives even those unacquainted with Buddhism enough context to feel moderately oriented.

Gregory’s forte is in providing references and quotes from other texts, especially those by Zongmi and the classics of Confucian and Taoist schools, which relate to Zongmi’s text. Yet, however well Gregory meets his aim of providing a contextual introduction to Chinese Buddhism, the reader should be aware that Gregory is, after all, an academic scholar whose frame of reference appears confined to the academy. For all of Gregory’s many and insightful connections between texts, Gregory’s overall result is that he misses the forest for focusing on the trees. His greatest error is that he fails to see that the essence and purpose of Zongmi’s work is to present a manifesto of One Vehicle (Ekayana) Buddhism.

Gregory recognizes that Zongmi’s treatise is in the framework of Buddhist doctrinal classification and that Zongmi’s use of that framework is uniquely practice-centered, but Gregory misses the point that the center and content of Zongmi’s practice is the Ekayana. Gregory views Zongmi’s practice orientation as being “based on Tsung-mi’s cosmogonic vision,” but for Zen master Zongmi it is the other way around: Zongmi’s cosmogonic vision is based on his practice experience. Gregory, as a philosopher, sees philosophy in Zongmi that isn’t there.

Zongmi too was a scholar, but he epitomizes the practitioner scholar rather than the academic scholar, and his aim is to present the One Vehicle of Buddhism so that people may know to “return to the root, and turn your light back upon the mind source” and recognize for themselves that the mind is the One Buddha Mind. Gregory consistently misinterprets Zongmi’s One Vehicle in terms of Tathagatagarbha doctrine. Gregory’s near obsession with Tathagatagarbha doctrine colors his discussion of Zongmi’s message throughout Inquiry Into the Origin of Humanity. What Gregory misses, is that just because Zongmi’s One Vehicle includes Tathagatagarbha doctrine doesn’t mean that Zongmi’s One Vehicle is any more determined by or informed by Tathagatagarbha doctrine than by the other Buddhists doctrines, such as emptiness or karma, that are also included within the One Vehicle. So the reader must be warned that whenever Gregory mentions “tathagatagarbha doctrine” that it must be taken with liberal doses of salt, revealing more about Gregory’s biased view than about Zongmi’s actual message.

For example, the term “tathagatagarbha” is only mentioned three times in Inquiry Into the Origin of Humanity, and each time is it only mentioned in passing as another label for the particular aspect of true nature that is being discussed, and it is not raised on its own as the content of Zongmi’s central teaching. What is Zongmi’s central content? In his own words it is “The Teaching of the One Vehicle That Reveals the Nature holds that all sentient beings without exception have the intrinsically enlightened, true mind.”

Zongmi’s position as both a Zen (Chan) master and Huayen master provided him with a unique perspective to appreciate the One Vehicle. however, Gregory misses the importance of Zongmi’s Zen context. The founder of the various Zen lineages in China was the Indian monk Bodhidharma, who was said to have taught the Lankavatara Sutra according to "the One Vehicle Lineage of Southern India." This is an important connection for understanding Zongmi’s treatise and is three-fold: first, the Lankavatara Sutra is one of the core scriptures upon which the Treatise on the Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana is based and Zongmi based his treatise largely within the context of the Awakening of Faith; second, the One Vehicle perspective of Bodhidharma, the Lankavatara, and the Awakening of Faith is the perspective that Zongmi used to release the One Vehicle teaching from the confines of those schools that associated the One Vehicle with a single sutra such as the Huayen or Lotus sutras. and third, Zongmi’s doctrinal classification of five stages is directly derived from Bodhidharma’s famous treatise called Outline For Discerning the Mahayana and Entering the Way By Four Practices and Contemplation.

Bodhidharma’s Outline presents Buddhist practice in the context of five categories that directly correspond to the five levels of Buddhist teaching outlined by Zongmi. Bodhidharma says that one enters the Way by two kinds of cultivation, that is, one enters by principle or by practice, entering by practice means entering by one of the four practices. The first four levels of Buddhist teaching in Zongmi’s outline correspond to the four practices described in Bodhidharma’s Outline, and the most profound teaching of the One Vehicle presented in Zongmi’s outline corresponds to what Bodhidharma calls “entering by principle” and says means “to rely on the lineage of awakening and to bear profound faith that the one true nature of beings is the same.” Thus Bodhidharma’s teaching of “One True Nature” is precisely what Zongmi is describes as “The Teaching of the One Vehicle That Reveals the Nature.”

Thus Zongmi’s innovation in the Inquiry Into the Origin of Humanity is not in creating from whole cloth the five categories of the teaching that he presents there, but in adapting the five teachings of Bodhidharma’s Zen that he inherited in his Zen training to the systematizing practices of doctrinal classification that were accepted in his day in the other Buddhist schools, and in showing how the five teachings are related to the creative process of consciousness which is, in fact, the creation of the universe itself as far as our awareness is concerned. Gregory fully appreciates the importance of Zongmi’s Buddhist “Genesis story” as being related to the importance of practice, but Gregory over emphasizes the question of the origin of humanity in the literal sense and thus sees Zongmi’s practice orientation to be “grounded on his cosmogony” when it is the cosmogony that is secondary and grounded in the practice.

As for the technical aspects of the translation, in my view, Gregory’s frequent use of brackets to insert words he feels should be implied is overdone to the point of distraction. The translator has a responsibility not to insert such material without brackets, so I am grateful when he uses them, but the overuse of brackets to insert the translator’s words just becomes evidence of the translator’s failure to translate the author’s words adequately. I also find fault in Gregory’s propensity to use different English words when translating the same Chinese word, as well as his using the same English word for translating different Chinese words. I feel an accurate translation should not mix and match the Chinese words with English words. The author must be presumed to be picking his words carefully, and as such the English words used to translate them should be used in correspondence to the Chinese so the reader of the English will know which words are used. If the same English word appears in two different paragraphs, the English reader should be able to know that the Chinese author used the same Chinese word in each paragraph, in this way the reader comes to learn how the author intended the words, not how the translator intends them.

Lastly, and least, I would quibble with Gregory on the translation of the title. I read the title as speaking about the “original person” not the “origin of humanity” and would translate the title as “The Original Person Debate” or “Treatise on the Original Person.” I accept that Gregory’s translation of the title is within the range of validity, however, it focuses on what Gregory sees as Zongmi’s emphasis on cosmogony, while I read Zongmi as being focused on directing each of us to realize our original person rather than our deluded person and that each of the deepening levels of the teaching is bringing us closer to the original person that is our true nature. .

In conclusion, while I am very critical of certain aspects of Gregory’s academic biases and his infatuation with Tathagatagarbha doctrine along with some of his translation techniques, I still recommend the book for its wealth of Chinese sources, with the caveat that the reader needs to read critically and not take Gregory’s interpretations of Zongmi as gospel. Zongmi’s sole goal is to bring us to the realization of the Teaching of the One Vehicle that Reveals the Nature and if the reader can keep this in mind while reading Zongmi, then the reading will be most beneficial.

Hogfather Zen

2010-06-13T20:26:00.000-07:00

Zen in the film “Hogfather”

SPOILER ALERT! This discussion of the film Hogfather reveals much (but not all) of the plot and the ending. If you want to experience the full joy and surprise of the film, along with all the puns and sci-fi and fantasy references, then rent the DVD (or watch on instant Netflix as I did) and then come back to read this.

Hogfather is a wonderful film with a mythic Mahayana Zen quality. I have no idea about the back-story of the apparently 37 or so comedic fantasy novels written by Terry Pratchett, one of which the film is based upon, nor do I know anything about Terry Pratchett, the person, other than that he has been knighted under the British system and called “Sir Pratchett” by those who care about such titles. Fortunately, as an American who believes that we revolted from the British monarchy in large part against the system of nobility and such, not one bone or pour feels compelled to call him “Sir.”

The film, though, is centered on a deeply profound issue of human nature, which as it happens, is also the fundamental question in Buddhism that led to the development and rise of Mahayana Buddhism, namely, what is the role of imagination in the world if our delusions, false beliefs, and such are taken away?

The story takes place on Discworld, a flat earth that is held up on the backs of four giant elephants who are standing on the shell of a giant turtle that is flying through space. The “auditors of reality” want to do away with all beliefs so that they don’t have to put up with myths, fairytales, and such things causing reality to be uncertain and messy. They hatch a plan to have the Hogfather (the Discworld equivalent to Santa Claus) killed on Hogswatch night while he is delivering his gifts to children. The idea being that if they can get the Hogfather killed then all other myths and beliefs can be eliminated in turn and reality will be made neat and tidy and run like clockwork thus making their jobs as auditors of reality easier.

The Auditors go to the Guild of Assassins and commission the hit on the Hogfather. Mr. Teatime (prounanced “Tee-ah-ta-me” as he tells everyone) is an assassin-in-training and chosen for the job because he is the only one crazy enough to think it can be done. He has even studied whether it is possible to kill death himself, but “merely as a hobby” of course, since if there were no death then there would be no Assassins Guild. Mr. Teatime comes up with the brilliant plan of going to the tooth fairy’s castle and using the collected teeth of all the children in the world to undo the belief in the Hogfather, thus assassinating him because if the children don’t believe in him then he won’t exist anymore.

Death and his granddaughter Susan are the central heroes of the tale. Death discovers the Auditors’ plan to kill the Hogfather and enlists the aid of his estranged granddaughter Susan to help him because the Tooth Fairy’s Castle is one place Death can not enter.

Susan discovers that the Hogfather himself has mythic roots and, before he became the Hogfather that he is today, he was an ancient demi-urge to whom sacrifices were made each year in the dead of winter to bring back the sun, and now if the Hogfather is assassinated, then the sun won’t rise again.

There are also Wizards of the Unseen University involved and gnomes and pixies and such.

The Mahayana Zen connection comes in with the understanding of polarities and the role of beliefs and rules in human society. The role reversal of having Death as the hero is the first indication of something really profound going on in the story. The question at the heart of the film is “what is reality” which of course is a quintessential Zen question. The Auditors of Reality want to take away all the imagination and belief out of reality so the world will run smoothly without unnecessary complications.

In the history of Buddhism, the desire to put an end to suffering by taking the imagination out of life became associated with the Early Schools of Buddhism whose exegesis of Buddhist scripture became perceived as anti-imagination, because all imagination and belief became defined as delusion and “wrong view” per se. Whether or not the criticism was precisely deserved, Mahayana developed, at least in part, as a way to understand imagination without completely denying it or repressing it. Of course this maneuver itself may be criticized, as the Mahayana has been and still is, as being too undisciplined in allowing the imagination to carry itself away and believe what it produces. However, between denying imagination and getting carried away by imagination lies the Middle Way, which is one variation of the Middle Way that the Mahayana and Zen, is at home with.

In traditional terms, it is the question of dealing with the characteristics of reality. The criticism of what was known as the Early Schools of Buddhism was that to realize the Buddhist aim of ending suffering they advocated turning away from characteristics into a nirvana of extinction of all characteristics. The goal of “right view” became the view that denatured reality and the characteristics of reality. This became perceived as a one-sided or dualistic view that actually bound people to suffering rather than providing freedom from suffering. From the Mahayana and Zen views true freedom from suffering meant above all else freedom from dualistic views upon which all suffering is based and conditioned.

As stated in The Platform Sutra, Zen Master Huineng says, “Outwardly, to be free from characteristics is immediately zen. Inwardly, to not be perturbed is immediately samadhi.” That is, zen is not a program to do away with the world of characteristics, including the characteristics of the imagination, but a path to be free and unperturbed by characteristics even while engaged with characteristics.

Using a different style of voice, in Hogfather, Death is the voice of this same wisdom. His “granddaughter” Susan has a certain magical side to her which she is trying to keep out of sight as she tries to live in the human world as a human. After they have rescued the Hogfather Susan asks her grandfather Death:

Susan: “Now tell me. . . “
Death: “What would have happened if you hadn’t saved him?”
S: “Yes”
D: “The sun would not have risen.”
S: “Then what would have happened?”
D: “A mere ball of flaming gas would have illuminated the world.”
S: “Alright, I’m not stupid. You’re saying that humans need fantasies to make life bearable.”
D: “No. Humans need fantasy to be human, to be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.”
S: “With Tooth Fairies, Hogfathers.”
D: “Yes, as practice; you have to start out learning to believe the little lies.”
S: “So we can believe the big ones.”
D: “Yes, justice, mercy, duty, that sort of thing
S: “They’re not the same at all.”
D: “You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy, and yet, you try to act as if there is some ideal order in the world as if there is some, some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.”
S: “But people have got to believe that or what’s the point?”
D: “You need to believe in things that aren’t true; how else can they become?”

Death here is presenting basic Buddhism when he says that by breaking things down into their constituent parts we can’t find any such substantial things as justice, mercy, etc. and they too are shown to be “false views” in the sense of being actual things. To see reality as it really is, we must see that there is no objective ideal order by which the universe may be judged. This is the elementary Buddhism and is called “conditional origination.”

But Mahayana Buddhism, like Death in the dialogue above, adds the important point that though the search for an objective order like the ideal “justice” is only a false view projected onto the world by our belief, still humans believe in such things, not because they are true, but precisely because they are false in order to make them become manifested in reality. In Zen Buddhism this is called “nature origination”, that is, all things arise from our true nature.

The inherent “falseness” or “untruth” of such things like “justice” is what is meant when Buddhism says things are empty. And the very much alive paradox is that it is because things are empty that they can become manifested. In Zen, the way to perceive this paradox as a direct experience, and not just as a thought-formation or another belief system, is called: “Don’t think good, don’t think evil. Right now, what is your original face?” This admonition to not think “good” or “evil” is the Buddhist version of seeing that “good and evil” are just like the Tooth Fairy and the Hogfather and should not be thought of as literal things. And to see one’s original face is to see directly and personally how things that are not true can become.

At the end of the film, Susan and Death have a final exchange.

Susan: “Granddad. Why? I mean, why did you do all this?”
Death: “Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom. Quite astonishing.”
S: “Oh.”
D: “Well then. Happy Hogswatch.”

Or as Zen master Yunmen said echoing the comprehension of living in a universe so full of wonders, “Every Day is a good day.”

Ancestor's Zen and Tathagata Zen

2010-04-25T14:04:00.000-07:00

Discussions of Zen's relationship to Mahayana Buddhism often raise the dichotomy of how words are taken and used in Zen. One of the famous mottos of Zen is that it is "not established on written words." This motto is intended to direct our attention away from searching written words for the truth to be found in our own mind or own nature. However, this motto itself becomes a sort of icon that is then mistakenly used by some to say that the Buddha's Sutras can be ignored.

In the Zen context, this dichotomy comes under the labels of "Ancestor's Zen" and "Tathagata Zen."

On the one hand, Ancestor's Zen acknowledges that words don't cut it and that we have to let go of discursive thnking models in order to focus on the direct pointing to our own nature of true suchness. This of course is where the so called "anti-intellectual" tendency arises in Zen. This movement of Zen began in full force with Nagarjuna's radical analysis of emptiness that took away all reliance on words in order to shove our noses into emptiness so we could experience the "revolution at the basis" of our awareness. Ancestor’s Zen removes the props of our conventional truths to show us where we stand on zero at any moment.

On the other hand, Tathagata Zen acknowledges that Zen comes through the Mahayana branch of the Tathagata's teaching of true suchness and so there is a fundamental need in the Bodhisattva's vow to remain in Samsara and give aid to beings of all capacities which includes talking about the structure and function of consciousness in order to help beings have the faith to practice and experience the “revolution at the basis.” Tathagata Zen shows us the functioning of Dharma in the plus and minus, expansion and contraction, of all activity that arises from zero.

The functioning of Ancestor’s Zen comes out most fully in the living interactions retold in the koans where we see the direct manifestation of true suchness that does not get caught up in the discriminatory meanings of words. The functioning of Tathagata Zen comes out most fully in the teishos and teachings of the Zen teachers from their “platforms” or “high seats.”

When we read works such as the The Sixth Ancestor’s Platform Sutra, John Blofeld’s great book The Zen Teaching of Huang Po or the various translations of The Record of Linji we see both Tathagata Zen and the Ancestor’s Zen represented in the sections on the teachings in the hall and the events in the field.

For example, a thorough reading of the Platform Sutra shows Huineng’s Ancestor’s Zen and Tathagata Zen. His Ancestor’s Zen is revealed in his famous poem

菩提本無樹 The root of Bodhi is treeless
明鏡亦非臺 The bright mirror also is not a platform
本來無一物 The root comes without a single thing
何處惹塵埃 What place can attract dust?

as well as in the famous interaction under the flag when he said “It is neither the flag nor the wind that is flapping; it is your mind flapping.”

Most of the Platform Sutra, however, is his exposition of Tathagata Zen from the high seat of the Platform. Here he is expounding on the great many themes of Mahayana including samadhi and prajna, confession and repentance, how to read and interpret the Sutras, the 5 aggregates (skandhas), the 12 entrances (ayatanas), the 18 realms (dhatus), and the transformation of the 8 consciousnesses (vijnanas) into the 4 wisdoms (jnana-prajna). Any view that Zen is anti-intellectual (in the generic sense) or anti-written word is destroyed by the Platform Sutra.

Tathagata Zen is all about reorienting the intellect from being lost in discursive thinking to turning the intellect toward true Suchness (Tathata). Experiencing and being aware of the coming and going (gata and agata) of suchness (tathata) is the meaning of the word contraction tathagata as it is used both for an epithet of the Buddha as the Tathagata and in the label Tathagata Zen.

The problem with misunderstandings of Tathagata Zen and the mistaken notion that Zen is non-intellectual comes from the belief that Zen is not involved with discrimination. However, this is a deep misunderstanding of the nature of Zen as a realization of the essential Mahayana tenet that the way of the Tathagatas and Bodhisattvas is to not abandon samsara but to realize the Path by remaining in the discriminations of samsara to show the way of liberation from samsaric suffering. In the Mahayana system of the “two truths”, the Tathagata Zen stance is that the ultimate truth exists only in relation to the One Suchness. What can be “called” ultimate truth is the constructed and relative conventional truth that points to the non-dual true nature of emptiness. However, if emptiness is itself taken literally to say that the Sutras are not part of Zen it is a grave error.

Huineng himself, though he was called “illiterate” was well versed in the Sutras. Here’s an excerpt from Chapter 10 the Platform Sutra, “Handing Down Instructions,” in which he warns against taking the Zen admonition about not establishing written words too literally.

In the active functioning of your own nature and in conversations with people, while outwardly in appearances separate from appearances; while inwardly in emptiness separate from emptiness. If you wholly attach to appearances (i.e., hold materialist views), then your perverted views broaden. If you wholly grasp emptiness (i.e., hold a nihilist view), then your non-illumination (ignorance) broadens.

People who grasp emptiness have slandered the Sutras (by saying) “straight words do not use written words.” Since they say “Do not use written words” these people too are not united with (their own) speech, simply as this speech then is the appearance of written words. Again, to say, “The straight Way is not established by written words,” then this “not established” are both words and are written words. On seeing a person who explains, then immediately they slander the other’s words as being attached to written words. You who are ranked (as Dharma heirs) must know self-delusion like this is able repeatedly to slander the Buddha’s Sutras. Do not desire to slander the Sutras; the hindrances of the sin are countless.

In my view, those who say that Zen can be separated from the Mahayana are focusing on the One Suchness of the root of Zen. That is, the one mind of true suchness transcends the colors and designs of the robes of any single religion. Admittedly, there are Bodhisattvas who walk among us in every religious or non-religious cultural context pointing to the root of mind, but to explain the structure and functioning of consciousness without reference to the Mahayana Buddhist Sutras or to Mahayana Tathagata Zen seems to me to be a difficult proposition at best and a self-crippling impossible nightmare at worst.

_/|\_

Hitler's Birthday

2010-04-20T13:46:00.000-07:00

I was reminded that today is Adolph Hitler's birthday, April 20, 1889.

Hitler is, of course, the guy everybody loves to hate. However, from a Buddhist perspective hate itself must be penetrated with insight and wisdom. To merely hate Hitler is to objectify what Hitler represents, and that objectification itself becomes a reinforcing and self-fulfilling prophecy that continues the cycle of hate. In other words, we can't really understand Hitler until we are fully aware of the Hitler within ourselves, and when we are aware of the Hitler within ourselves then the very character of hate toward Hitler, or anyone else for that matter, as an object is transformed.

That is not to say that one then comes to loves Hitler in the conventional sense either. The social power of a Hitler, is collected in the "person" of a Hitler by the ability of people to deny the Hitler in themselves. A Hitler doesn't worry about people not liking him as long as people are afraidd of him. People fear a Hitler for so many different reasons, but a common denominator of that fear is that people disassociate from what it is that makes them fearful in the image of a person like Hitler. At the same time we recognize the guy may be saying something a little kooky, we admire that he says it with conviction more than we are willing to disagree with the content of what he says.

I suggest that everyone read Hitler's manifesto, Mein Kampf, to learn about the world view of the fascist mentality.

If you want to see if you have discovered your inner Hitler then test yourself by asking if you believe in advertising? Do you think that advertising is a simple communication to consumers. or is advertising the essential propaganda tool of our American Brand of Fascism? If you don't see how advertising creates the Brave New World of the American Brand of Advertising, then you have definitely not seen into your own inner Hitler.

For example:

"The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out....The function of propaganda is, for example, not to weigh and ponder the rights of different people, but exclusively to emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. Its task is not to make an objective study of the truth, in so far as it favors the enemy, and then set it before the masses with academic fairness; its task is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, chapter six.

A person who doesn't hear the drum beat of sloganeering in today's advertising, and especially in the political advertising of Republicans and the so-called "Tea Party" movement is just blind their inner Hitler. The people who are doing the propagandizing with such slogans as "tax and spend liberal elites" and "Big government is bad; small government is good" and other such single pointed slogans are taking their propaganda methods directly from Hitler's play-book.

Here's another fun Hitler quote:

"We stand for the maintenance of private property... We shall protect free enterprise as the most expedient, or rather the sole possible economic order."

Now any such feelings that one has for "private property" as the sine qua non of the so-called "free" enterprise economic system must be seen in the context of one's inner Hitler to be appreciated for how this sentiment becomes a bedrock of the American Brand of Fascism.

The Scary Mother Image

2010-03-09T14:10:00.000-08:00

Someone said,

Apparently I'm still scared of my own mother and I'm past 35 years old. This is important so I thought I would post it although I'm not sure if it is appropriate. Just that the last few weeks I have not felt able to meditate and it centres around her it seems. I had some idea that my feelings about Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva are affected by my mother.

When we are conceived, we face the world without any discriminations. Our self-consciousness develops as we are able to form discriminations. The primary discrimination is the one that coalesseces into the "mother" (in most cases) as the "caregiver" and provider of sustanance, warmth, security, love, etc. Who could not have some trepidation in confronting what this image means residing at the very foundation of our map of reality that we have been constructing since day one of conception.

When we meditate, we are beginning the journey of confronting our map of reality with our awareness of reality. We can't deal with the mental model we have constructed of reality wihtout confronting in some manner the image of "mother" that is at the core of our mental map of reality. It is the internal image of mother in our own nature that we are dealing with as adults, not the external mother, in terms of coming to terms with mother. So an important part of the journey is to see that the image of mother embedded in the structure of our self-conscious identity is not actually our biological mother, but the mother we have constructed based on the years of interaction, both within the womb and after being born, with our biological mother.

This mother is the primal protectoress and provider of basic security for our childhood fears. When this image begins to bubble up and we start to be conscious of it as a feeling-toned image rather than a literal externalised individual being, it carries along with it as it rises into consciousness all the fear-feelings that the image was created to protect us against. In Buddhist imagery, this challenge is conceived as the attack of Mara and the delusions of Maya. There are real dangers in the world, but in order to be present we have to distinguish the dangers that are actually present from the incorporated dangers of our inner system of insecurity that we have embodied into the image of mother.

This is no easy journey, and in Zen it is said that ignorance is father and greed is mother, and so we must kill our mother and father. This of course is not talking about killing literally, but killing that fixation upon which these internalized images are built, that is, dismantaling the rafters and beams of the house of reality modeling that sustains these images as the father and mother of self-conscousness fixated on a "self" as a separate entity. The mother image seeking to maintain the separate ego fixation will assail the mind with fearful and scary images in order to maintain the status quo of the map of reality.

No one can tell another how to do this work in particular, only that it is the normal process on the path, and as you discover that the images that scare you are in fact "only" residual images upon which one's self-consciousness itself is built, than with determined perseverance you will say along with Buddha, "I see you, oh Housebuilder!"

_/|\_
Gregory

What is called the clear and clean Dharmakaya Buddha?

2010-03-09T06:14:00.000-08:00

Here's a section from Chapter 6 Repentance of the Platform Sutra of Huineng that I just translated.

"What is called the clear and clean Dharmakaya Buddha? The nature of worldly people is at root clear and clean. The 10,000 things are secondary to one’s own nature. By consideration of every evil matter, then you give birth to evil practices. By consideration of every good matter, then you give birth to good practices. Thus, are all things located within one’s own nature, like the sky being always clear. Though the sun and moon are always bright, when they become covered by floating clouds, then above is bright and below is dark. If suddenly they encounter a puff of wind, the clouds disperse, above and below are bright together, and the 10,000 images all appear. The nature of worldly people is always floating and drifting like those clouds of the sky.

"Learned and virtuous ones, innate-intelligence (jnana) is like the sun, and intuitive-wisdom (prajna) is like the moon. This intelligence-wisdom (jnana-prajna) is always bright. By externally attaching to conditions, false thoughts are a cover of drifting clouds, and one’s own nature is not able to show one’s brightness. If one encounters a learned and virtuous one to hear the true and right Dharma and by oneself eliminates delusion and falsehood, then the internal and external are bright and unobstructed, and the 10,000 things all appear from within one’s own nature. A person’s seeing-nature (J. kensho) likewise is indeed returning to thusness. This is called the clear and clean Dharmakaya Buddha."

Zen Samadhi

2010-02-27T11:01:00.000-08:00

Two lines from Hakuin Ekaku Zenji's "Ode to Sitting Meditation" (J. Zazen Wasan) read,

As to the zen-samadhi of the Mahayana,
There is just too much to praise.

What is Zen-samadhi?

In the Mahayana, meditation practice is technically called zen-samadhi (in Sanskrit, dhyana-samadhi), or the samadhi of meditation. In practical language it is simply called sitting zen (J. zazen) or sitting meditation. Zen-samadhi is the primary solution to the Buddhist question of the spiritual search. The historical Buddha realized enlightenment by sitting zen-samadhi, and as taught in the Parable of the Wayward Son in the True Dharma of the White Lotus Sutra, though Buddha preached and taught many truths, principles, and doctrines they all amounted to the skillful means of a wealthy father (Buddha) who wanted to return his lost and poor son (all beings) to his true inheritance to be gained by zen-samadhi. Thus all the words of Buddhism amount only to various means of convincing us to sit and meditate like Buddha did to realize enlightenment for oneself.

The difficulty of translating the Sanskrit term samadhi adequately into English is one reason the word has been used without translation and incorporated into English dictionaries. It is commonly, though erroneously, translated as “concentration”. Among the problems with the term “concentration” is that it is weighted too much on the “one pointedness” aspect of attention training which is only the beginning step of initial samadhi practice, and it creates the false impression that the whole of samadhi is the act of concentrating on a single object. A better translation would be “focus” in the sense that when awareness is concentrated on the focal point of awareness itself, rather than on a single object, then everything else (i.e., all things or ''dharmas'') comes into focus.

In the way that a camera or one’s eye does not reach out to things to bring them into focus and clarity but makes an inner adjustment of the focal point, so too, does the practice of zen-samadhi make an inner adjustment of the focal point of awareness. This inner adjustment is sometimes called “turning the light around” to draw attention to the fact that zen-samadhi does not reach out to focus on objects but turns inward to be aware of themeless or objectless awareness itself. Whether one is practicing zazen as “only minding doing sitting” (J. shikantaza) or as inquiry into “the source of speech” (Ch. huatou) with koans, the common denominator that makes them both zazen is that the zen-samadhi in the practice is not a concentration on an object but a themeless or formless focus on the focal point of awareness itself without the externalization of an object of form or thought used to act as a mediated object of awareness. Though “just sitting” zazen may start with concentration techniques such as focused breath counting or breath awareness and “koan inquiry” zazen may start with focused awareness of the focal point of the koan (e.g., a huatou such as “What is it?” or “Who hears?” or “Mu”) neither method of zazen becomes real zen-samadhi until the awareness is “turned around” from reaching out to objects to “focus” on the true suchness of awareness itself.

Another acceptable translation is “contemplation” in the sense of considering, observing, or noticing with steady attention. In Christian terminology contemplation can mean the state of mystical awareness of God’s being or the Godhead, which in Buddhist terminology would mean the direct awareness of the ground of being, that is, the Dharmakaya of the Tathagata.

From the etymological root of samadhi meaning “putting together,” “to join,” and “to combine,” other valid translations of samadhi are “union”, “unification”, and “absorbtion” in which all discriminations are joined or combined into a realization of the great non-dual harmony of true suchness.

Essentially, samadhi is the inherent state of steady or unperturbed awareness of one’s true nature. In the Platform Sutra Huineng describes zen-samadhi (i.e., the samadhi of meditation) in this way:

Learned and virtuous ones, what is called zen-samadhi (dhyana-samadhi)? Outwardly, to be free from characteristics is doing zen. Inwardly, to not be perturbed is doing samadhi. Outwardly, if one attaches to characteristics, inwardly, the heart-mind is immediately perturbed. Outwardly, if one is free from characteristics, the heart-mind is immediately not perturbed. The root nature by itself is pure, by itself is samadhi. Only by seeing conditions and thinking about conditions is one immediately perturbed. If someone sees various conditions and the heart-mind is not perturbed, this is real samadhi. Learned and virtuous ones, outwardly, to be free from characteristics is immediately zen. Inwardly, to not be perturbed is immediately samadhi. Outwardly, zen, inwardly, samadhi, this is doing zen-samadhi.

The Parable of the Lamp

In the Zen lineage of the Mahayana, the Three Trainings (or Threefold Learning, i.e., sila, samadhi, and prajna) are presented in the Parable of the Lamp using the ancient form of a lamp made up of a dish of oil with a lighted wick resting at the edge. The resting place of the table (or floor) is the body, the dish is the conscious mind, the oil is sila (moral conduct), the wick is samadhi (unperturbed contemplation), and the flame is prajna (intuitive wisdom). That which is called a "lamp" does not exist without all of the parts present and functioning. If there is no oil, then the wick is dry and the flame won't stay lit. If there is no wick, then there is nothing for the flame to be centered upon and anchored to. If there is no flame, then it is not actually a lamp but just a bowl of oil with a piece of string in it. The wick of samadhi does not become a true wick until it is lit with the flame of prajna, and the flame has no ability to combust until it has a wick through which to draw oil.

Of course metaphors can only be taken so far, but in line with this mutual identity of wick and flame, that is, the physical lamp and it's light, Huineng taught in Chapter 4 of the Platform Sutra that samadhi and prajna are essentially not different:

"Learned and virtuous ones, In this Dharma door of ours samadhi and prajna are considered to be the root. Great assembly, do not be confused. The words “samadhi” and “prajna” are different, but samadhi and prajna are one substance and are not two. Samadhi is the substance of prajna; prajna is the function of samadhi. Immediately at the time of prajna, samadhi is in prajna. Immediately at the time of samadhi, prajna is in samadhi. If one knows this meaning, then samadhi and prajna are equally learned. You various people who study the Way, do not say, 'First samadhi, then comes prajna,' or 'First prajna, then comes samadhi,' to separate them. Those with this view make the Dharma have the characteristic of duality."

3/11/10 ADDENDUM:

Having begun with Hakuin's mention of zen-samadhi and then gone back to Huineng speaking about zen-samadhi, let us go further back to Bodhidharma, the man who brought the Ekayana Zen lineage to China. In the treatise titled "Great Master Dharma's Discourse on the Nature of Awakening" (達磨大師悟性論) Bodhidharma discusses zazen and zen-samadhi in what appears to be a direct foundation for Huineng's teaching. Here's the passage:

If a person knows that the six roots (i.e., 6 sense organs) are not real and the five accumulations (skandhas) are provisional names and that always to go seeking it in the body is necessarily to dwell without samadhi, then one should know that such a person expounds the words of the Buddha. A sutra says, "A home in the cave of the five accumulations is called the courtyard of zen. When the inner illumination is opened and unbound, then the gate of the Great Vehicle could not be brighter!"
` Not recollecting all things (sarvadharma), therefore, is called doing zen-samadhi. If someone understands these words, then walking, standing, sitting, and lying down are all zen-samadhi. Knowing the mind is empty is called the act of seeing Buddha. What is considered the reason? For all Buddhas in the 10 directions, in every consideration there is no mind. Not seeing in the mind, is called the act of seeing Buddha.
To unstingily renounce the body is called Great Charity (Skt. mahadana). The samadhi of detaching from the various activities is called Great Sitting Meditation (J. dai zazen). Because why? Worldly people are singly directed toward activities, and the Small Vehicle is singly directed toward samadhi. Namely, to pass beyond the worldly people and the sitting meditation (zazen) of the Small Vehicle is called the Great Sitting Meditation. If those who act with this realization, in all the various appearances, do not seek to release themselves and, in all the various illnesses, do not cure their own errors, then this is entirely the power of Great Zen-Samadhi.

So, as taught by Bodhidharma, Huineng, and Hakuin, the realization of zen is zen-samadhi. Everything that zen teachers have to say is nothing more than the great tapestry of brocade used to guide students to the realization of zen-samadhi.

###