Mindfulness is the most popular idea in all Buddhist traditions among Westerners. It is what (almost) everybody teaches, to be aware and mindful. This is also popular among non-Buddhists. Just be in the present, they say. And yes, mindfulness is a central Buddhist teaching, we find it in the noble eightfold path and of the 37 factors of enlightenment mindfulness is 8 of those. But we shouldn't forget the other parts of the path. Mindfulness in itself is quite useless if our purpose is to be free from suffering since one can just go on with one's life as before including all the habits and attachments. There is also the view that mindfulness means a peaceful mind without thoughts, to just be (in the present) without doing anything. That kind of mindless mindfulness separates one from everyday life and it can be like a happy vacation. Unfortunately, that state is just as impermanent as any other, so grasping it is another source of pain and trouble.
If we look at the classical mindfulness practice in Buddhism it isn't just about being in the present but being mindful of body, feelings, thoughts and mind. It is also more than just recognising them but seeing how all of them are impermanent, suffering and selfless. What makes a bodhisattva is not simply mindfulness but being aware of emptiness and the suffering of beings. The true meaning of Zen is not "be in the present" but seeing directly that the mind is originally empty and aware, pure and functioning.
Within the Buddhist context then mindfulness is not really about being in the present rather than seeing how past, present and future relate to each other and not being attached to them, seeing how time itself and all appearances are nothing more than names and ideas. Because there are only names and ideas it becomes evident how even mindfulness is another concept we are trying to pursue and conceive a personality within that frame. Letting go of our thoughts and emotions is where we can use mindfulness efficiently to attain liberation.
13.6.11
30.5.11
Lost in Details
The Lotus Sutra has a vital message to all Buddhists that nobody should ever forget. All the teachings are expedient means to bring everyone to liberation. When this cardinal doctrine is forgotten there is sectarianism (this is the best teaching), traditionalism (this is how it has been for 1000s of years), restorationism (returning to the Original Teachings), modernisationism (new age, new people, new teaching), etc. The important thing about the teaching of expedient means that one doesn't take a single position regarding what teaching is the only true. In fact, it shouldn't even be called "teaching" but rather method. Any method is good if it helps in developing wisdom-compassion (bodhicitta).
Let me rephrase it. When people argue for how something must be done and what attainments are the real ones as it is defined by their books/teachers they are not mindful of the meaning of the four noble truths. These four truths simply and directly explain the problem, its cause, the solution and the path. It is gradually eliminating suffering. It is like eating. The obvious point of eating is to end hunger. A slice of bread or a bowl of rice is OK just like exquisite gourmet meals are good too. One may study for years about a single cuisine and become a master chef, or learn enough to bake bread, it is meaningless to compete over what is the best food. That's because it is a personal thing to decide what one likes to eat. It is also a personal thing to reduce pain and sorrow. Judging others how peaceful and happy they are is very much like pursuing them to eat your food instead of somebody else's. However, we many not just judge others but even tell them that they actually need the right judge to tell them if they are fine or not.
In Zen they like to say that enlightenment is like drinking water when one instantly knows if it is cold or not. In Tibetan Buddhism they use the example of tasting sugar. At the same time they keep telling you that you must have somebody to confirm if it is indeed cold/sweet. The Buddha had a clear answer for this problem (SN 35.152) that one can personally tell if there are still the three poisons present or not. Mahayana sutras are also clear about bodhisattvas attaining insight into no birth. But then because of explanations originally made to assist understanding many get lost it details and fail to keep in mind the purpose of the teachings. On the other hand, if they are told not to rely on the teachings they immediately get attached to their own concepts or to teachers. That's why the four reliances were taught and it covers all the common misunderstandings.
Let me rephrase it. When people argue for how something must be done and what attainments are the real ones as it is defined by their books/teachers they are not mindful of the meaning of the four noble truths. These four truths simply and directly explain the problem, its cause, the solution and the path. It is gradually eliminating suffering. It is like eating. The obvious point of eating is to end hunger. A slice of bread or a bowl of rice is OK just like exquisite gourmet meals are good too. One may study for years about a single cuisine and become a master chef, or learn enough to bake bread, it is meaningless to compete over what is the best food. That's because it is a personal thing to decide what one likes to eat. It is also a personal thing to reduce pain and sorrow. Judging others how peaceful and happy they are is very much like pursuing them to eat your food instead of somebody else's. However, we many not just judge others but even tell them that they actually need the right judge to tell them if they are fine or not.
In Zen they like to say that enlightenment is like drinking water when one instantly knows if it is cold or not. In Tibetan Buddhism they use the example of tasting sugar. At the same time they keep telling you that you must have somebody to confirm if it is indeed cold/sweet. The Buddha had a clear answer for this problem (SN 35.152) that one can personally tell if there are still the three poisons present or not. Mahayana sutras are also clear about bodhisattvas attaining insight into no birth. But then because of explanations originally made to assist understanding many get lost it details and fail to keep in mind the purpose of the teachings. On the other hand, if they are told not to rely on the teachings they immediately get attached to their own concepts or to teachers. That's why the four reliances were taught and it covers all the common misunderstandings.
Because their capacities, natures, and desires are immeasurable, Bodhisattvas pronounce immeasurable Dharmas. As the Dharmas pronounced are immeasurable, their meanings are also immeasurable. The immeasurable meanings are born from one dharma. This one dharma is no appearance, which is not apart from appearance. The truth that appearance and no appearance are not apart from each other is called true reality. As Bodhisattva-Mahāsattvas abide in this true reality, the lovingkindness and compassion they exude are genuine, not false. They can truly end sentient beings’ suffering. Having rescued them from suffering, Bodhisattvas pronounce the Dharma to them, enabling them to experience happiness.
(Sutra of Immeasurable Meanings)
2.5.11
Undisputed Lineages
I've been intrigued for a while now how Zibo Zhenke, a famous master of the Ming era also known for distancing himself from affiliating with any Chan lineage, ended up in Xuyun's Linji line. But then it was just now something even stranger appeared to me. According to the official lineage Puming Deyong (or Miaoyong, whose legitimacy was denied by the immediate ancestor of the founder of the Japanese Obaku school; see in the below mentioned book's page 213), who is three generations before Zibo, was only 16 (or 17) years old when Zibo died in 1603. Strange, isn't it?
But it's really nothing compared to Xuyun's Weiyang lineage what is a clear case of remote succession (yaosi 遙嗣) as we can see here.
However, it all becomes ironic when we read from Ven. Shengyan,
And one more informative work I found today is Dr. Jimmy Yu's "A Tentative Exploration into the Development of Master Sheng Yen’s Chan Teachings" (PDF)
But it's really nothing compared to Xuyun's Weiyang lineage what is a clear case of remote succession (yaosi 遙嗣) as we can see here.
However, it all becomes ironic when we read from Ven. Shengyan,
What is important to highlight here is that among all the expressions of Chinese Buddhism, Chan is the only tradition with an uninterrupted lineage, and a formal institutional foundation.Let's just say that these fun facts were an appetiser for Jiang Wu's "Enlightenment in Dispute: the reinvention of Chan Buddhism in seventeenth-century China". It is worth reading, at least the conclusions at the end of each chapter and part 4.
And one more informative work I found today is Dr. Jimmy Yu's "A Tentative Exploration into the Development of Master Sheng Yen’s Chan Teachings" (PDF)
29.4.11
Outer Buddha, Inner Buddha
Does this dog have a buddha-nature? No.
Doctrinally Pure Land Buddhism teaches an outer buddha, Zen an inner buddha. Practically both teaches to rely completely on buddha. Complete reliance on buddha means not relying on my concepts, my views. That is because believing that I can solve it is wrong. People tend to mistake this for giving in to one's impulses, however, that is pretty much the opposite of not giving in to my ideas. That's why with such faith one also has to understand that this samsara is the place of suffering. This samsara is nothing but my hanging on to looking for happiness in impermanent things. The buddha, being inconceivable, is eternal. Relying on what is inconceivable is indeed non-reliance. Not trusting anything is neither opposing nor embracing but letting go without the intention of letting go. So it is also called the self-liberating of defilements. This no effort is definitely the greatest effort, because there's always the view one has to do something.
Somebody asked, "All buddhas have a teacher, don't they?"
The teacher said, "They have."
"Who is their teacher?"
"Amita Buddha! Amita Buddha!"
(Recorded Sayings of Zhaozhou, 269)
Doctrinally Pure Land Buddhism teaches an outer buddha, Zen an inner buddha. Practically both teaches to rely completely on buddha. Complete reliance on buddha means not relying on my concepts, my views. That is because believing that I can solve it is wrong. People tend to mistake this for giving in to one's impulses, however, that is pretty much the opposite of not giving in to my ideas. That's why with such faith one also has to understand that this samsara is the place of suffering. This samsara is nothing but my hanging on to looking for happiness in impermanent things. The buddha, being inconceivable, is eternal. Relying on what is inconceivable is indeed non-reliance. Not trusting anything is neither opposing nor embracing but letting go without the intention of letting go. So it is also called the self-liberating of defilements. This no effort is definitely the greatest effort, because there's always the view one has to do something.
Somebody asked, "All buddhas have a teacher, don't they?"
The teacher said, "They have."
"Who is their teacher?"
"Amita Buddha! Amita Buddha!"
(Recorded Sayings of Zhaozhou, 269)
17.4.11
Does Buddha Exist?
One of the dividing doctrines between Mahayana and Theravada is the question of the buddhas' existence beyond parinirvana. Mahayana takes the position that their functioning is present eternally while Theravada believes they don't.
The Mahayanasamgraha gives two reasons for the buddhas' eternal function: suchness, the essence of Dharmakaya, is unborn and undying, and the vows to liberate all beings could not be fulfilled if they stopped working. The Theravada takes the position that there is no functioning after parinirvana based on the teaching of nirvana without residue, the dissolution of aggregates.
It is easy to create a duality here as if they took extreme positions, existence for Mahayana and annihilation for Theravada. However, Buddhism is the path of the middle way so it is better to abandon such divisive thinking and take a closer look.
Suchness is inconceivable so there is no point in saying that it has any particulars to differentiate buddhas, thus the concept of a single dharmakaya that can be called dharmadhatu. What makes the rupakaya of buddhas is from the vows. Such appearance is perceivable based only on the individual's mind. This is true even for the nirmanakaya as only those with proper karma can meet a buddha. So there is the teaching that a buddha should not be conceived as a body, mind or attribute. Consequently whatever function of a buddha one may perceive is a mental construct.
Theravada simply states that if a buddha is gone it's gone forever and beings can make no contact with him. We can say that they take the teaching of dharmakaya only but not that of the rupakaya. But since the rupakaya is not the real buddha it is an upaya in Mahayana. It should also be noted that the word buddha is used differently, while in Mahayana it becomes ultimately a synonym for ultimate reality in Theravada it remains a title of a person.
The Mahayanasamgraha gives two reasons for the buddhas' eternal function: suchness, the essence of Dharmakaya, is unborn and undying, and the vows to liberate all beings could not be fulfilled if they stopped working. The Theravada takes the position that there is no functioning after parinirvana based on the teaching of nirvana without residue, the dissolution of aggregates.
It is easy to create a duality here as if they took extreme positions, existence for Mahayana and annihilation for Theravada. However, Buddhism is the path of the middle way so it is better to abandon such divisive thinking and take a closer look.
Suchness is inconceivable so there is no point in saying that it has any particulars to differentiate buddhas, thus the concept of a single dharmakaya that can be called dharmadhatu. What makes the rupakaya of buddhas is from the vows. Such appearance is perceivable based only on the individual's mind. This is true even for the nirmanakaya as only those with proper karma can meet a buddha. So there is the teaching that a buddha should not be conceived as a body, mind or attribute. Consequently whatever function of a buddha one may perceive is a mental construct.
Theravada simply states that if a buddha is gone it's gone forever and beings can make no contact with him. We can say that they take the teaching of dharmakaya only but not that of the rupakaya. But since the rupakaya is not the real buddha it is an upaya in Mahayana. It should also be noted that the word buddha is used differently, while in Mahayana it becomes ultimately a synonym for ultimate reality in Theravada it remains a title of a person.
24.3.11
Instructions Needed?
According to Martin Schlütter (see: How Zen Became Zen, p. 170) there were only two meditation manuals produced in Song China when Zen was conquering Chinese and eventually East Asian Buddhism. They're written by Changlu Zongze (長蘆宗賾) and Foxing Bencai (佛心本才) both with the title Zuochanyi (坐禪儀). English translations are available from Carl Bielefeldt (Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation) and Thomas Cleary (Minding Mind – A Course in Basic Meditation) respectively. It's more interesting to see that since the advent of Southern Chan there was not a single meditation instruction made within the Zen school. Many think that this is because of the discrepancy between sudden enlightenment and gradual meditation practice. Indeed, the early meditation instructions of the East Mountain school (Daoxin, Hongren, Shenxiu, etc.) were heavily criticised by Shenhui - from whom the whole Northern-Southern idea comes - but that doesn't necessarily entail total silence on meditation, especially as it's been such an everyday matter for monks. Nevertheless, when it comes to meditation instruction the whole is summed up as being aware of the rising and disappearing of thoughts without attachment.
While it is all right to say that gradual techniques are not Zen I think it is a mistake to separate those two texts as meditation instructions but call the many teachings as not instructions. Indeed, a large number of Zen teachings are about enlightening the mind to its nature. That is the whole point of meditation. Everything else are auxiliary methods at best, but generally just distractions. Foxin says,
In fact, these so called meditation instructions don't say much. If compared to such classics as Zhiyi's Mohezhiguan (摩訶止観), or even the Xiaozhiguan (小止観, in Ven. Dharmamitra's translation: Essentials of Buddhist Meditation), these Zen texts are mere leaflets with minimum information. But that is not because they were afraid or reluctant to speak about methods. Rather, it is that there's nothing more needed than "by seeing nature becoming buddha". But it's possible to have further objections here about how to see nature. In fact, this is the same as asking about unbound awareness.
Therefore, from a Zen perspective, there is no need for special instructions at all, which explains very well the lack of detailed meditation manuals, even today.
While it is all right to say that gradual techniques are not Zen I think it is a mistake to separate those two texts as meditation instructions but call the many teachings as not instructions. Indeed, a large number of Zen teachings are about enlightening the mind to its nature. That is the whole point of meditation. Everything else are auxiliary methods at best, but generally just distractions. Foxin says,
Nowadays we see students who sit diligently but do not awaken. Their problem derives from their dependence on conceptions, their feelings sticking to bias and falsehood. In their confusion they turn their backs on the true basis and mistakenly go along with quietism or activism. This is why they fail to attain enlightenment.The extremes of quietism and activism, non-existence and existence, dislike and like are the two common modes of the mind. So the instruction to be aware without relying on anything avoids both mistakes. But one may raise the question: how can we be aware without relying on anything? That's where a long instruction in different meditation practices could follow. Again, that is not the Zen way. Because the mind is originally aware and pure, knowing and empty, there is no need to develop or maintain a special state. That's how "ordinary mind is the way". Of course, buddha-nature and mindfulness meditation are nothing new in Buddhism and they don't necessarily mean this kind of sudden approach, therefore this is, so to say, a Zen speciality where they focus on the essential realisation. (Still, even that may not be new if we think of how the prajnaparamita texts focus on prajnaparamita, which is indeed being aware without attachment.)
In fact, these so called meditation instructions don't say much. If compared to such classics as Zhiyi's Mohezhiguan (摩訶止観), or even the Xiaozhiguan (小止観, in Ven. Dharmamitra's translation: Essentials of Buddhist Meditation), these Zen texts are mere leaflets with minimum information. But that is not because they were afraid or reluctant to speak about methods. Rather, it is that there's nothing more needed than "by seeing nature becoming buddha". But it's possible to have further objections here about how to see nature. In fact, this is the same as asking about unbound awareness.
So we should know that the moon appears when the water is still, the shine is complete when the mirror is clean.Here Foxin refers to the peaceful mind. Based on the idea that once the mind is calmed one is able to observe it, or when it's silent the nature appears naturally, the practice of calm abiding is advised by many teachers. However, that is falling back to the secondary and getting lost in concepts. Another method is using a phrase from a Zen story, this is the practice with koans. However, it is hardly different from other techniques we find in Buddhism. The direct path of sudden enlightenment is in seeing mind's nature because there is nothing to grasp as mind, thoughts just come and go without interruption. Because all attachment is created by taking thoughts as solid and real, if one just doesn't hold on to them all hindrances are gone. The explanations, teachings, method are only to boost one's faith in letting go, for it rarely happens easily as we're all deeply habituated to hanging on something. That's why even if one has gained some insight it's good for stabilising one's practice only but ingrained mental patterns reappear again and again. However, if one stays with buddha-nature, no matter what comes it can cause no trouble. This is using Zen in everyday life and continuous practice.
Therefore, from a Zen perspective, there is no need for special instructions at all, which explains very well the lack of detailed meditation manuals, even today.
20.3.11
The Zen Joke
The Lotus Sutra is a best-seller in East-Asian Buddhism but if we read it today it isn't very impressive at all. I think there are three main reasons for being so popular in Asia: (1) its magical-devotional value; (2) its rich scenery and large number of parables; (3) the hard work of commentators to bring out a hidden meaning. Not impressive for us because it has little or no magical value for us, can't read it as if it were a novel and it's difficult to make much sense of the whole thing. Same could be said about many other Vaipulya (Mahayana) sutras. Koans are another thing. Originally they're (mostly) fictional stories - perhaps better to call them folk tales - in books about the history/legend of Zen situated mainly in the Tang era (618-907). Such stories were popular not just because they are meant to be expressions of the enlightened state but rather because they're perplexing and funny.
I believe there's lot of entertainment in Buddhism without which it could not have penetrated cultures and societies throughout Asia. It's enough to think of the Jatakas, the primary teachings for lay people, to see my point. Those stories about Gautama's former lives served as an inspiration and source for the emergence of bodhisattvahood as a religious path. But as time goes by the tales of old become legends for the present and they're taken as historical events to serve as examples. Of course, it is a complicated thing for a once nearly heretical idea to turn into orthodoxy and it needs more than a moment of fame. Anyhow, looking at a group of Buddhist teachings as entertainment can be useful in understanding their purpose. It also helps conceiving methods to teach the Dharma today. This is skilful means of course, the secret weapon of buddhas and bodhisattvas to tame beings lost in the fog of delusion.
For instance, a modern version of the Lotus Sutra could be a fantasy novel where the heroes are looking for the Lotus Sutra. I can imagine the Avatamsaka Sutra as a sci-fi series full of spaceships and alien creatures, and Sudhana is the captain leading his men to unknown worlds. The Larger Amita Sutra could be a post-apocalyptic film about Dharmakara - Deekay for friends - saving humanity. The Vimalakirti Sutra might be a sitcom full of witty punch lines. Not to mention Tantric horror and porn movies. Such reproductions of holy scriptures could serve a great purpose in introducing the radically different view of wisdom and compassion. But they must be high quality works for sure, both in content and appearance.
I believe there's lot of entertainment in Buddhism without which it could not have penetrated cultures and societies throughout Asia. It's enough to think of the Jatakas, the primary teachings for lay people, to see my point. Those stories about Gautama's former lives served as an inspiration and source for the emergence of bodhisattvahood as a religious path. But as time goes by the tales of old become legends for the present and they're taken as historical events to serve as examples. Of course, it is a complicated thing for a once nearly heretical idea to turn into orthodoxy and it needs more than a moment of fame. Anyhow, looking at a group of Buddhist teachings as entertainment can be useful in understanding their purpose. It also helps conceiving methods to teach the Dharma today. This is skilful means of course, the secret weapon of buddhas and bodhisattvas to tame beings lost in the fog of delusion.
For instance, a modern version of the Lotus Sutra could be a fantasy novel where the heroes are looking for the Lotus Sutra. I can imagine the Avatamsaka Sutra as a sci-fi series full of spaceships and alien creatures, and Sudhana is the captain leading his men to unknown worlds. The Larger Amita Sutra could be a post-apocalyptic film about Dharmakara - Deekay for friends - saving humanity. The Vimalakirti Sutra might be a sitcom full of witty punch lines. Not to mention Tantric horror and porn movies. Such reproductions of holy scriptures could serve a great purpose in introducing the radically different view of wisdom and compassion. But they must be high quality works for sure, both in content and appearance.
6.3.11
Dharma-Transmission Case Study
It is all right when we find out that things that happened many hundreds of years ago differ from what we thought. But can we be sure about more recent history? People hardly care when they hear the Indian patriarchs of Zen are fiction. They might not care much - or don't know usually - that the whole lineage of Tang dynasty is a fake too. But there's an interesting thing I've thought about a while back but it was only today that I actually looked into. It is the case of Gyeongheo (Kyong-ho), the hero of modern Korean Buddhism.
And the look at this mail written in defence of Samu Sunim's authenticity:
Well, it is not unlike at all when Hakuin's transmission is very much in doubt, to say the least, but that has already been looked into by others. Gyeongheo is a different case. This is from a book published just last year:
Let's think here a bit. Yeongwol Bongyul (영월봉율/永月奉律, 1738-1823; source), that is Yŏngun, was already dead when Gyeongheo was born (1846/1849, date unclear). But OK, the official website says the same, so Sørensen could have been mislead by whatever sources he were using:
It is more interesting that in transmission lineages (see here and here) it is Manhwa Boseon (만화 보선, 萬化普善, d.u.) identified as the preceding 74th patriarch and Yeongwol is the 73rd. Makes more sense, although from the different biographies I've read it appears that Manhwa was only Gyeongheo's ordination master at best. It is even more fascinating what the biography in his collected writings say:
The translator looks confused about the names a bit (the "and" between names is unnecessary) but that's a secondary thing. What Gyeongheo explicitly says is that there was nobody who gave him any kind of dharma-transmission. But then in the next paragraph a lineage is established. Note that such a lineage was created by the disciples.
There are two other famous masters mentioned in Bopkyong's letter, although they don't have such flourishing descendants as Gyeongheo. Nevertheless, here are two essays to read about them:
The real question is, however, what do we make of it? Certainly I'm not questioning the greatness of the above masters who have played such enormous roles in developing modern Korean Buddhism. The problem is not with them but the way dharma-transmission is understood. Once it was developed by certain Chinese monks to establish their positions in monastic hierarchy. But what use does it have now? It is obviously not a proof of one's enlightenment or anything like that. It doesn't guarantee anything except for a weak basis for religious superiority. Then why are modern Zen people hung up on it so much?
In recent times, Seon Masters Gyeongheo Seong-u (1846-1912) and Yongseong Chinjong (1864-1940) greatly promoted the Ganhwa Seon style. Gyeongheo succeeded to the Dharma of Seon Master Yong-am Hye-eon. ... Seon Master Yeongseong succeeded to the Dharma lineage of Hwanseong Jian.
And the look at this mail written in defence of Samu Sunim's authenticity:
Unlike the Japanese Rinzai Zen tradition, which sometimes boasts of “unbroken transmission,” there are many Korean Seon (Zen) Masters who became enlightened without a teacher. The most famous among them were Gyeongheo (1849-1912) and Seongcheol (1912-1993). Gyeongheo revitalized Korean Seon Buddhism toward the end of the 19th century, while Seongcheol served as the Supreme Ancestor of the Jogye Order from 1981 until he passed away. Yongseong (1864-1940), Samu Sunim’s Grand Master, was another one who attained enlightenment without a teacher.
Well, it is not unlike at all when Hakuin's transmission is very much in doubt, to say the least, but that has already been looked into by others. Gyeongheo is a different case. This is from a book published just last year:
Following his spiritual awakening, Kyŏnghŏ went to the Ch’ŏnjang Temple. Here he received dharma-transmission from the Sŏn Master Yŏngun (b. 1783), an eleventh-generation successor in the direct line of Hyujŏng (1520–1604) also known as Great Master Sŏsan. At age thirty-three, Kyŏnghŏ succeeded Yŏngun as spiritual leader (K. pangjang) of the temple.
(Henrik H. Sørensen: Mirror of Emptiness - The Life and Times of the Sŏn Master Kyŏnghŏ Sŏngu; in Makers of Modern Korean Buddhism, SUNY Press, Albany, USA. 2010. p. 133)
Let's think here a bit. Yeongwol Bongyul (영월봉율/永月奉律, 1738-1823; source), that is Yŏngun, was already dead when Gyeongheo was born (1846/1849, date unclear). But OK, the official website says the same, so Sørensen could have been mislead by whatever sources he were using:
In spring of the next year, he moved to Cheonjangam Hermitage in Mt. Yeonamsan, and continued the practice which succeeds enlightenment. He said he was continuing the lineage of Yongam who was a successor of the Cheongheo and Hwanseong.
It is more interesting that in transmission lineages (see here and here) it is Manhwa Boseon (만화 보선, 萬化普善, d.u.) identified as the preceding 74th patriarch and Yeongwol is the 73rd. Makes more sense, although from the different biographies I've read it appears that Manhwa was only Gyeongheo's ordination master at best. It is even more fascinating what the biography in his collected writings say:
[quoting Gyeongheo:]"Although my enlightenment is not complete and has not been acknowledged by a master, what I have been trying all my life is to firmly establish what the duty of an ascetic is. I am already old and in the future my disciples should transmit the law to Elder Yongam, to establish a clear lineage of the law that I received from my master Manhwa.
[biographer continues:]In obeyance of the master's will, we found the origination of transmission that the preceptor succeeded the law of Yongam and Hye-eon, and it is transmitted from Hye-eon to Geumho and Byeolcheom, from Byeolcheom to Yulbong and Cheonggo, and from Cheonggo to Cheongbong and Geo-ae, and from Geo-ae to Ho-am and Chejeong, and from Cheongheo to Pyeonyang, and from Pyeonyang to Pungdam, from Pungdam to Wondam, and from Wondam to Hwanseong. Thus, Preceptor Gyeongheo is the 12th legitimate disciple of Cheongheo and the 7th legitimate disciple of Hwanseong."
The translator looks confused about the names a bit (the "and" between names is unnecessary) but that's a secondary thing. What Gyeongheo explicitly says is that there was nobody who gave him any kind of dharma-transmission. But then in the next paragraph a lineage is established. Note that such a lineage was created by the disciples.
There are two other famous masters mentioned in Bopkyong's letter, although they don't have such flourishing descendants as Gyeongheo. Nevertheless, here are two essays to read about them:
"Bodhidharma said that those who sought Buddhas and patriarchs apart from the mind of sentient beings were “heavenly demons and heretics” (cheonma oedo). . . . There are people who seek Heaven (cheon) apart from mind-nature (simseong) and worship it, and there are those who say that Heaven is creating [something], but they are all deluded."
A Monk of Mukti and Karma: The Life and Thought of Baek Yongseong by Huh Woosung (download file, can be opened by Adobe Reader)
"Venerable Songchul also emphasized the need for this kind of certification by an authentic Master. That is one of the reasons why Venerable Songchul criticized Chinul's Seon. The Jogye Order linage has always been transmitted by formal recognition received from a Seon master. Venerable Songchul insists that Chinul had no such recognition. But there is also no evidence that Songchul had certification by a Seon master."
The real question is, however, what do we make of it? Certainly I'm not questioning the greatness of the above masters who have played such enormous roles in developing modern Korean Buddhism. The problem is not with them but the way dharma-transmission is understood. Once it was developed by certain Chinese monks to establish their positions in monastic hierarchy. But what use does it have now? It is obviously not a proof of one's enlightenment or anything like that. It doesn't guarantee anything except for a weak basis for religious superiority. Then why are modern Zen people hung up on it so much?
2.3.11
Traditionally Modern
There is Humanistic Buddhism and Engaged Buddhism (virtually the same thing) as modern trends throughout the world. It is about focusing on the larger society and social needs instead of the abstract and religious things. What is not pointed out, not emphasised is a human Buddhism. It exists in everyday reality, in scholarly works and in communities, but without anyone really spelling it out. What do I mean?
People do something because they find some kind of interest in it. That interest can have many forms from material gain to spiritual zeal. The laity supports monks in exchange for merit and some other religious services. In the West such an attitude is almost non-existent. But there is something else, the value of inner peace and wisdom. I don't often hear about people inviting monks to their homes to exorcise bad spirits but rather to lead meditation sessions or give teachings. Even being a monastic is not that important.
This human Buddhism is about the view that Buddhism is something one can experience for himself here and now (sure, this was said by the Buddha too, but it has a somewhat new meaning I think in the modern context) and not restricted to the monasteries or celestial buddhas and bodhisattvas. It is also how the view of Buddha is that he was a normal human being with special mental attributes but not a superhuman or anything close to that. Of course, this is not a movement but rather the way Buddhism got integrated into a Western milieu.
Is this human centred Buddhism a return to the original? Some like to say that referring to the Pali Canon as the authentic source. I rather say it is returning to the original not in a historical but a spiritual sense. What I see in the history of Buddhism is the periodical reforming of the teaching to make it relevant to the people and that makes it a living tradition. Change is inevitable. What is constant is the Dharma, the Truth that all follower can touch directly.
People do something because they find some kind of interest in it. That interest can have many forms from material gain to spiritual zeal. The laity supports monks in exchange for merit and some other religious services. In the West such an attitude is almost non-existent. But there is something else, the value of inner peace and wisdom. I don't often hear about people inviting monks to their homes to exorcise bad spirits but rather to lead meditation sessions or give teachings. Even being a monastic is not that important.
This human Buddhism is about the view that Buddhism is something one can experience for himself here and now (sure, this was said by the Buddha too, but it has a somewhat new meaning I think in the modern context) and not restricted to the monasteries or celestial buddhas and bodhisattvas. It is also how the view of Buddha is that he was a normal human being with special mental attributes but not a superhuman or anything close to that. Of course, this is not a movement but rather the way Buddhism got integrated into a Western milieu.
Is this human centred Buddhism a return to the original? Some like to say that referring to the Pali Canon as the authentic source. I rather say it is returning to the original not in a historical but a spiritual sense. What I see in the history of Buddhism is the periodical reforming of the teaching to make it relevant to the people and that makes it a living tradition. Change is inevitable. What is constant is the Dharma, the Truth that all follower can touch directly.
23.1.11
Is this Buddhism?
What makes something Buddhist? Today I was introduced to this UK meditation thingy called Headspace. Essentially they seem to teach breath awareness (anapanasati) meditation without, well, anything even resembling "alien Eastern mysticism". While they have a former monk in their group, I haven't seen any reference to Buddhism beyond that. The well known Big Mind (Big Heart) technique goes just a bit further with their occasional mention of Zen. And the list goes on about teachers and groups preaching a special meditation method "fit for the modern human regardless of faith" taken from any Buddhist tradition. But how much is that Buddhism? I mean, obviously the teacher has a background in long term dedicated practice in a mostly traditional Buddhist school, and the methods presented are hardly different from what one could find in the respective school's original materials and monasteries.
One simple reason to say no is that correct awareness and correct absorption are only 25% of the complete path. Just think about it, if you get only an engine and two windscreens of a car you still won't be able to go anywhere, especially since a block damn heavy. However, one could argue that there are a couple lineages where Buddhism is reduced to a single practice, or so it appears. I say it appears so because what is often presented in translations are only excerpts. For instance, there are many Zen books where ancient masters talk on and on about seeing the true nature of mind and doing meditation. But that results in a very biased view if one doesn't take into account the complete monastic training and environment. It's like reporting only about art classes of a high school without mentioning the complete curriculum. Nevertheless, that's what happens to Buddhism when it is taught in that "meditation only" form.
But let's look at it in another way. There are certainly teachings called the sudden/direct path and they usually have to do something with buddha-nature. That's because the doctrine of buddha-nature provides enough theoretical basis for saying that there is nothing to be developed (the qualities of a buddha are inherent) but only to be realised. (Going down a few levels, the same can be stated about selflessness, i.e. there has never been any self to be free from.) So what is the realisation that promises instant liberation?
There are two common approaches. One is to see the rise and fall of phenomena, the other is to see that there's no graspable self. While theoretically both can be taught directly to anyone, seldom does it result in actual realisation. And even when it does one has to continue reminding oneself of that insight regularly to finally maintain it all the time. The source of problem is easy to see when we consider that these methods are among the final meditations done by a practitioner following the usual gradual paths. That's why it is also said about sudden/direct methods that they're for people with the best capacity, although there are cases when it's claimed to be good for anyone.
The main problem with using exclusively a sudden/direct method is that while for a few moments one might gain realisation, immediately after that it is reified and turned into a concept. That is because of the habit of mind that keeps conceptualising everything, even non-conceptuality. That's where the meaning of a complete training comes in. It is possible to have a glimpse of freedom but that is meant only for strengthening one's faith in the whole practice. Thus we come to the very first element of Buddhism, trust, summed up as taking refuge in the Triple Jewel. It is followed by correct view, understanding the four noble truths, which is on one hand the teaching of rebirth and karma, on the other the teaching of liberation and path.
So, what makes something Buddhist? When a teaching has the correct view, it is Buddhist. This is like swapping correct meditation to correct view. The reason is that from the correct view comes everything else, while correct meditation leads only to liberation. It is certainly wonderful when somebody can make immediately the last step. It is certainly common that most of us has trouble making the very first. So if a complete teaching lacks the full training in the noble eightfold path it does not lead to liberation and cannot be designated as Buddhadharma.
"Tame your mind, tame your mind, tame your own mind with the Dharma!
If one tames one's mind with the Four Thoughts that Turn the Mind,
then even without View, Meditation, recitation of mantras, Creation and Completion Stages,
one can't mistake the Path to Freedom from another."
(Dza Patrul Rinpoche in Advice to Kunzang Chogyal, tr. Karen Liljenberg)
One simple reason to say no is that correct awareness and correct absorption are only 25% of the complete path. Just think about it, if you get only an engine and two windscreens of a car you still won't be able to go anywhere, especially since a block damn heavy. However, one could argue that there are a couple lineages where Buddhism is reduced to a single practice, or so it appears. I say it appears so because what is often presented in translations are only excerpts. For instance, there are many Zen books where ancient masters talk on and on about seeing the true nature of mind and doing meditation. But that results in a very biased view if one doesn't take into account the complete monastic training and environment. It's like reporting only about art classes of a high school without mentioning the complete curriculum. Nevertheless, that's what happens to Buddhism when it is taught in that "meditation only" form.
But let's look at it in another way. There are certainly teachings called the sudden/direct path and they usually have to do something with buddha-nature. That's because the doctrine of buddha-nature provides enough theoretical basis for saying that there is nothing to be developed (the qualities of a buddha are inherent) but only to be realised. (Going down a few levels, the same can be stated about selflessness, i.e. there has never been any self to be free from.) So what is the realisation that promises instant liberation?
There are two common approaches. One is to see the rise and fall of phenomena, the other is to see that there's no graspable self. While theoretically both can be taught directly to anyone, seldom does it result in actual realisation. And even when it does one has to continue reminding oneself of that insight regularly to finally maintain it all the time. The source of problem is easy to see when we consider that these methods are among the final meditations done by a practitioner following the usual gradual paths. That's why it is also said about sudden/direct methods that they're for people with the best capacity, although there are cases when it's claimed to be good for anyone.
The main problem with using exclusively a sudden/direct method is that while for a few moments one might gain realisation, immediately after that it is reified and turned into a concept. That is because of the habit of mind that keeps conceptualising everything, even non-conceptuality. That's where the meaning of a complete training comes in. It is possible to have a glimpse of freedom but that is meant only for strengthening one's faith in the whole practice. Thus we come to the very first element of Buddhism, trust, summed up as taking refuge in the Triple Jewel. It is followed by correct view, understanding the four noble truths, which is on one hand the teaching of rebirth and karma, on the other the teaching of liberation and path.
So, what makes something Buddhist? When a teaching has the correct view, it is Buddhist. This is like swapping correct meditation to correct view. The reason is that from the correct view comes everything else, while correct meditation leads only to liberation. It is certainly wonderful when somebody can make immediately the last step. It is certainly common that most of us has trouble making the very first. So if a complete teaching lacks the full training in the noble eightfold path it does not lead to liberation and cannot be designated as Buddhadharma.
"Tame your mind, tame your mind, tame your own mind with the Dharma!
If one tames one's mind with the Four Thoughts that Turn the Mind,
then even without View, Meditation, recitation of mantras, Creation and Completion Stages,
one can't mistake the Path to Freedom from another."
(Dza Patrul Rinpoche in Advice to Kunzang Chogyal, tr. Karen Liljenberg)
5.1.11
Friendly Argument
It's amazing to see educated and usually well-meaning Buddhists arguing with knives to each other's throats. So easy it is to be carried away by a tiny misunderstanding. In the seventh scene (where in Constantinaple people fight over a single letter "i") of The Tragedy of Man we read:
Perchance that which, to others, folly seems.
A hair’s breadth only doth divide the two,
Sublimity and folly. In the heart
One voice alone may judge betwixt the twain:
This judge mysterious is - sympathy,
Which deifies or slays with mockery.
Sengcan's poem matches it:
Depart for a hairbreadth and heaven and earth are set apart.
If you want it to appear do not be for or against.
This could be taken as a common expression of the dualistic view and an advice to avoid it. But that is quite abstract, isn't it? The point is to see how we take a position in any dilemma or argument. It is not a problem to decide on something, of course, without that we couldn't even breathe. But when we remain ignorant about a view being just a mental phenomenon and imagining it to be a solid truth emotions arise and then on our actions are driven by unrecognised feelings.
The often used phrase of the unity of wisdom and compassion is not an ungraspable idea at all. It is being able to be kind not against our feelings but though not getting stuck in views that bring about so many emotions. It is the attitude of shaking hands after a heated debate.
Perchance that which, to others, folly seems.
A hair’s breadth only doth divide the two,
Sublimity and folly. In the heart
One voice alone may judge betwixt the twain:
This judge mysterious is - sympathy,
Which deifies or slays with mockery.
Sengcan's poem matches it:
Depart for a hairbreadth and heaven and earth are set apart.
If you want it to appear do not be for or against.
This could be taken as a common expression of the dualistic view and an advice to avoid it. But that is quite abstract, isn't it? The point is to see how we take a position in any dilemma or argument. It is not a problem to decide on something, of course, without that we couldn't even breathe. But when we remain ignorant about a view being just a mental phenomenon and imagining it to be a solid truth emotions arise and then on our actions are driven by unrecognised feelings.
The often used phrase of the unity of wisdom and compassion is not an ungraspable idea at all. It is being able to be kind not against our feelings but though not getting stuck in views that bring about so many emotions. It is the attitude of shaking hands after a heated debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
