Test Your Enlightenment

[jeeprs]

So, if one were to answer 'yes' to any or all of the ten questions, wouldn't such arrogance then disqualify you?

Perhaps such questions are not really awaiting an answer, but are intended to serve as grounds for reflection on whether you really do understand the teaching.

(Incidentally I read a saying by Nicholas of Cusa, who was not Buddhist, that has a very similar meaning - 'the unattainable is attained by non-attainment'.)

[greentara]

David, "1. Do you have any ill-will or anger toward yourself or anyone?
If yes, then you're not enlightened. If no, then excellent, then ask:

2. Do you have any sense cravings or desires of any kind?
To answer no, that would mean no sexual relations, no food cravings, no picking out certain foods because they taste better, no cravings of any kind. Some might be able yes to having no ill-will, but few of us (if any) could stake claim to having absolutely no cravings or desires of any kind."

The above is a simple list and one could ask is this the taste of enlightenment? It's tempting to say yes. Upon scrutiny one can say it's looking at the menu but not eating the food.

[David N. Snyder]

The above is a simple list and one could ask is this the taste of enlightenment? It's tempting to say yes. Upon scrutiny one can say it's looking at the menu but not eating the food.

Yes, it is deliberately a simple list because most (perhaps all) of us will fail right there; we might have some progress along the path, but not the complete eradication of all sense desires and pleasures.

And yes again, it is not the end with the ending of craving; beyond that there is still putting it into practice and the wisdom to be obtained.

[Matt J]

One might argue that the Buddha proposed a very simple enlightenment test:

1. Is there suffering?

[kirtu]

I see your wordy Yanshou and raise you just sitting.

They say that just sitting is practice-enlightenment and there's nothing beyond that, nothing to achieve at all. On the other hand, you sit silently till the end of your life. And if we scratch the rhetoric of just sitting a little bit we find that there's a lot more going on. So it can be that it is not Yanshou who talks too much but certain teachers say too little about what Buddhism is about. Mystifying enlightenment is of no use.

They say that just sitting is practice-enlightenment

Why is that? Because just sitting is practice-enlightenment. If it's enlightenment, then why do we need practice? Because we are habituated to delusion. If it's practice, then how can enlightenment dawn? Because the mind has the potential for enlightenment already and in some ways is already enlightened. Just sitting is the actualization of Manjushri and Shakyamuni.

and there's nothing beyond that, nothing to achieve at all.

Just sitting wipes away delusive delusion and grows the experience of Buddhahood.

quote]On the other hand, you sit silently till the end of your life. [/quote]
Our teachers keep that from happening.

And if we scratch the rhetoric of just sitting a little bit we find that there's a lot more going on.

That's for sure.

...but certain teachers say too little about what Buddhism is about.

Real teachers embody Shakyamuni in every step.

Kirt

[lobster]

Mystifying enlightenment is of no use.

It is easy enough to answer the above question for oneself. Post the answers and everyone is an expert on delusion . . . And ready to offer unqualified advice . . . Thanks for providing . . .

[plwk]

Looks like this is one of those kind of Zennie questionnaire where...

if you answer yes whack! whack!
if you answer no whack! whack!
if you don't answer whack! whack!

any which way, it's a whack! whack!

[Simon E.]

Mystifying enlightenment is of no use.

It is easy enough to answer the above question for oneself. Post the answers and everyone is an expert on delusion . . . And ready to offer unqualified advice . . . Thanks for providing . . .

Go on..indulge us. Answer the questions...

[Astus]

Kirt,

It is actually quite easy to connect Yongming's Buddhism with Dogen's, although their general appearance is quite different, partly because Yongming lived just before the Song dynasty changes in Chan. Chinul for instance combines the teachings of Yongming and Dahui quite well.

Just sitting (只管打坐) is a combination of no-thought (無念, i.e. 非思量) with sitting meditation (坐禪). No-thought for Yanshou is the zong (宗), just as it is awareness/knowing (知) for Zongmi and ordinary mind (平常心) for Mazu. Yongming compares the two approaches and says (Integrating Chinese Buddhism, p. 191; end of the second question in the Guanxin Xuanshu) that the Hongzhou (Mazu) method works for those of the highest faculties while the Heze (Zongmi) path fits different capacities.

If it is true that just sitting equals seeing the nature (見性) then giving positive answers to all ten questions should be fairly simple. Let's see how it goes.

[1] Seeing nature is knowing that thoughts come and go.
[2] When there is no proliferation of ideas there is no attachment.
[3] There is no other meaning of the Buddhadharma but seeing nature.
[4] Not relying on preconceptions one sees and acts according to circumstances.
[5] Thoughts cannot stay even for a moment.
[6] Hope and fear, love and hate are only thoughts.
[7] Confusion and clarity are both without substance, one moment of consciousness is followed by another.
[8] Compassion comes with seeing nature, they are not two.
[9] Seeing how one's mind works shows how all minds work.
[10] Having or not having a thought is still clinging to a thought.

This kind of reductionist approach that is undoubtedly the Zen style can easily appear as a negation of the complexities of the path. In fact, it was one of Yanshou's primary goal to show that the teachings (教) harmonise with Zen (宗). That's why Albert Welter gave the title to his book "A Special Transmission within the Scriptures".

[kirtu]

Kirt,

It is actually quite easy to connect Yongming's Buddhism with Dogen's, although their general appearance is quite different, partly because Yongming lived just before the Song dynasty changes in Chan. Chinul for instance combines the teachings of Yongming and Dahui quite well.

Now we're getting somewhere, esp. once you raise Chinul. The stylistic differences are incidental - I was thinking that perhaps the translation was too verbose as well but maybe not.

If it is true that just sitting equals seeing the nature (見性) then giving positive answers to all ten questions should be fairly simple. Let's see how it goes.

Just sitting leads (can lead) to full enlightenment but most people's just sitting is much more practice and much less enlightenment.

[1] Seeing nature is knowing that thoughts come and go.

That is a start. Seeing nature is beyond thoughts coming and going but that is a start.

[2] When there is no proliferation of ideas there is no attachment.

There can be no proliferation on the cushion or even in the Buddha Hall but what happens during work? If there's really no proliferation then there's no attachment. Unfortunately no proliferation and thus no attachment is subtle, a tiger waiting in the weeds of our minds, waiting to strike.

[3] There is no other meaning of the Buddhadharma but seeing nature.

I think that too much on the emptiness side. The Tathagata side has to be functional.

For me the rest of the statements that you have are too limited.

[8] Compassion comes with seeing nature, they are not two.

Compassion arises spontaneously from seeing one's nature. It also arises spontaneously, in my experience, from purification arising from practice even before seeing one's nature. This is one of the main values of practice before attaining Buddhahood - one spontaneously enters the Bodhisattva path.

This kind of reductionist approach that is undoubtedly the Zen style can easily appear as a negation of the complexities of the path.

Yes.

In fact, it was one of Yanshou's primary goal to show that the teachings (教) harmonise with Zen (宗). That's why Albert Welter gave the title to his book "A Special Transmission within the Scriptures".

I'll definitely take a look at it.

Why did Yanshou feel a need to show that the teaching harmonize with Zen exactly?

Kirt

[Astus]

Why did Yanshou feel a need to show that the teaching harmonize with Zen exactly?

There was a trend at the time of calling Zen a "special transmission outside the teaching" to separate it from other schools and to make it look superior. This naturally resulted in people rejecting studying the canon. As we know, eventually the idea of special transmission won and the mature Zen of the Song dynasty followed, and that was brought to Japan and eventually to the West.

Seeing nature is beyond thoughts coming and going but that is a start.

Zongmi writes (Zongmi on Chan, p. 88; same quoted by Chinul in Collected Works, p. 290):

"If you find a good friend to show you [the path], you will all-at-once awaken to the Knowing of voidness and calm. Knowing is no mindfulness and no form. Who is characterized as self, and who is characterized as other? When you are aware that all characteristics are void, it is true mind, no mindfulness. If a thought arises, be aware of it; once you are aware of it, it will disappear. The excellent gate of practice lies here alone. Therefore, even though you fully cultivate all the practices, just take no mindfulness as the axiom. If you just get the mind of no mindfulness, then love and hatred will spontaneously become pale and faint, compassion and wisdom [prajna] will spontaneously increase in brightness, sinful karma will spontaneously be eliminated, and you will spontaneously be zealous in meritorious practices. With respect to understanding, it is to see that all characteristics are non-characteristics. With respect to practice, it is called the practice of nonpractice. When the depravities are exhausted, the rebirth process will cease; once arising and disappearing has extinguished, calmness and illumination will become manifest, and responsive functions will be without limit. It is called becoming a buddha."

[kirtu]

Zongmi writes (Zongmi on Chan, p. 88; same quoted by Chinul in Collected Works, p. 290):

"If you find a good friend to show you [the path], you will all-at-once awaken to the Knowing of voidness and calm. Knowing is no mindfulness and no form. Who is characterized as self, and who is characterized as other? When you are aware that all characteristics are void, it is true mind, no mindfulness. If a thought arises, be aware of it; once you are aware of it, it will disappear. The excellent gate of practice lies here alone. Therefore, even though you fully cultivate all the practices, just take no mindfulness as the axiom. If you just get the mind of no mindfulness, then love and hatred will spontaneously become pale and faint, compassion and wisdom [prajna] will spontaneously increase in brightness, sinful karma will spontaneously be eliminated, and you will spontaneously be zealous in meritorious practices. With respect to understanding, it is to see that all characteristics are non-characteristics. With respect to practice, it is called the practice of nonpractice. When the depravities are exhausted, the rebirth process will cease; once arising and disappearing has extinguished, calmness and illumination will become manifest, and responsive functions will be without limit. It is called becoming a buddha."

Right, this is the classic reversing the 12 links. But jumping (seeing) the Tathagata nature directly is faster and better (IMHO). Combining the two is Zen's own above and below practice/realization.

Did Zongmi or Yanshou teach about this? Chinul of course did.

Kirt

[Astus]

Right, this is the classic reversing the 12 links. But jumping (seeing) the Tathagata nature directly is faster and better (IMHO). Combining the two is Zen's own above and below practice/realization.

Did Zongmi or Yanshou teach about this? Chinul of course did.

Kirt

Zongmi writes in the Chan Prolegomenon (Zongmi on Chan, p. 123):

"All dharmas are like a dream. All the noble ones have said the same thing. Thus, thought of the unreal from the outset is calm. Sense objects are from the outset void. The mind of voidness and calm is a spiritual Knowing that never darkens. It is precisely this Knowing of Voidness and calm that is your true nature. No matter whether you are deluded or awakened, mind from the outset is spontaneously Knowing. [Knowing] is not produced by conditions, nor does it arise in dependence on any sense object. The one word "Knowing" is the gate of all excellence. Because of beginningless delusion about it, you have falsely grasped body and mind as a self and produced such thoughts as passion and anger."

And then continues with the same as quoted already, identifying the essential practice of no mindfulness, i.e. no thought. Zongmi claims that only this teaching of the Knowing (or awareness) is the explicit method that covers both the essence and the function, while other schools (Hongzhou, Niutou, etc.) fail to achieve this completely. Yanshou directly quotes Guifeng to show the different interpretations of the nature of mind found in the Chan lineages at the beginning of the Guanxin Xuanshu, therefore both Zongmi and Yongming hold the Heze Chan as the most authentic. Yanshou writes (Integrating Chinese Buddhism, p. 175):

"This awareness is the essence of mind for all the sentient beings. "Mind" is its name and awareness is its essence. It is comparable to "water" being the name and wetness being its essence. This awareness is neither the awareness that distinguishes subject and object nor the awareness of illuminating wisdom that realizes enlightenment. Rather, it is natural and spontaneous awareness. It acts freely without intention. It follows conditions but does not change; and though it does not change, it follows conditions. That is why it is called empty tranquil awareness. "Empty and tranquil" means to be without characteristics. Because it has a powerful ability to understand, yet is without form, it is called numinous awareness without confusion. Thus it is also called tranquil awareness, tranquil illumination, formless awareness, or non-knowing awareness."

Then he quotes from the Zhaolun, thus showing how the teaching of emptiness is in agreement with this, what is followed by another explanation (p. 177):

"This awareness is true awareness, the same as empty tranquil awareness. It is also called "awareness of no-thought." If one has no thought and awareness, one is in the state of common people; if one has no-though and non-knowing, one is in the state of the two vehicles; if one has no-thought, but with awareness, one is in the state of the Buddhas. No-thought is empty and tranquil [awareness], and is also called "non-abiding awareness." Because if one abides in something, it is comparable to a person entering into a dark room and not being to see anything. But, if one does not abide in anything, it is like sunlight and moonlight illuminating and making visible all varieties of things."

Why did I say that seeing nature is knowing that thoughts come and go?

"But the essence of Suchness itself cannot be put an end to, for all things [in their Absolute aspect] are real; nor is there anything which needs to be pointed out as real, for all things are equally in the state of Suchness. It should be understood that all things are incapable of being verbally explained or thought of; hence, the name Suchness.
Question: If such is the meaning [of the principle of Mahayana], how is it possible for men to conform themselves to and enter into it?
Answer: If they understand that, concerning all things, though they are spoken of, there is neither that which speaks nor that which can be spoken of, and though they are thought of, there is neither that which thinks nor that which can be thought of, then they are said to have conformed to it. And when they are freed from their thoughts, they are said to have entered into it."
(The Awakening of Faith - Attributed to Ashvaghosha, p. 40)

"The Way needs no cultivation, just not defiling it. What is defilement? When you have a mind of birth and death and an intention of creation and action, all these are defilement. If you want to know the Way directly, then ordinary mind is the Way. What is an ordinary mind? It means no intentional creation or action, no right or wrong, no grasping or rejecting, no terminable or permanent, no profane or holy."
...
"Grasping good and rejecting evil, contemplating emptiness and entering concentration—all these belong to intentional creation and action. If one seeks further outside, he strays farther away. Just put an end to all mental calculations of the triple world. If one originates a single deluded thought, this is the root of birth and death in the triple world. If one simply lacks a single thought, then he excises the root of birth and death and obtains the supreme treasure of the dharma-king. Since countless kalpas, the deluded thoughts of ordinary man—flattery, deception, self-intoxication, and arrogance—have formed the one body. Therefore, the su¯tra says, ‘It is only by many dharmas that this body is aggregated. When arising, it is only dharmas arising; when extinguishing, it is only dharmas extinguishing.’ When the dharma arises, it does not say ‘I arise’; when the dharma extinguishes, it does not say ‘I extinguish.’ The former thought, the later thought, and the present thought—all successive moments of thought do not wait for one another, and all successive moments of thought are quiescent and extinct. This is called the ocean-seal sama¯dhi, which contains all dharmas."
(Mazu Daoyi in "The Hongzhou School", p. 123, 126)

"If someone can suddenly awaken to the correct cause, then he is at the stage of leaving defilement behind. He then shatters the three worlds and twentyfive forms of existence. Such a person knows that all phenomena, internal and external, are not real—arising from mind’s transformations, they are all provisional designations. There is no need to anchor the mind anywhere. When feelings merely do not attach to things, then how can things hinder anyone? Let the nature of other things flow freely, without [interfering by] trying to break apart or extend anything. The sounds that one hears and the forms that one sees are all ordinary; whether being here or there, one freely responds to circumstances without any fault."
(Guishan's Admonitions in "Zen Classics", p. 30)

"The One Mind alone is the Buddha, and there is no distinction between the Buddha and sentient beings, but that sentient beings are attached to forms and so seek externally for Buddhahood. By their very seeking they los it, for that is using the Buddha to seek for the Buddha and using mind to grasp Mind. Even though they do their utmost for a full aeon, they will not be able to attain to it- They do not know that, if they put a stop to conceptual thought and forget their anxiety, the Buddha will appear before them, for this Mind is the Buddha and the Buddha is all living beings."
(Zen Teaching of Huang Po, p. 29-30)

"If within a single moment deluded thinking suddenly ceases, [you will] thoroughly perceive your own mind and realize that it is vast and open, bright and luminous - intrinsically perfect and complete. This state, being originally pure, devoid of a single thing, is called enlightenment. Apart from this mind, there is no such thing as cultivation or enlightenment.
...
the illusory mind of delusion is originally rootless. You should never take a deluded thought as real and try to hold on to it in your heart. As soon as it arises notice it right away. Once you notice it, it will vanish. Never try to suppress thoughts but allow thoughts to be as you watch a gourd floating on water."
(Hanshan Deqing)

These are just a few works to show that enlightenment simply depends on grasping or not grasping a thought, just as the Platform Sutra says about moments of buddhahood. The idea of "jumping directly" to see that the nature of mind is empty and aware is in fact not that immediate, it rather serves as a background for letting go of thoughts. That's why it is the first step in Baizhang's three steps system. Not clinging to phenomena is also in perfect agreement with the teachings on selflessness, emptiness, mind only and the rest. Talking about an inherent buddha-nature can sound like a special teaching, but when it comes down to practice it is no different from the rest.

[oushi]

[1] Seeing nature is knowing that thoughts come and go.

Is there one person that thinks that thoughts come and stay? This very nature of thoughts is the cause of the problem. Because thoughts come and go, people do all they can to initiate them and sustain them. The main influence society does on a person is "you have to know!" and "you have to remember!". "We all know that thoughts come and go, that is why we have to deal with it".

[catmoon]

It's a trap. The real test runs something like this:

When you saw the title of this thread, did you consider taking the test?

If the answer is no, good , there is hope for you.

If the answer is yes, tear up everything you know and start over.

[Simon E.]

Thats a cop out...

And personally I tear up everything I know and start again most days.

[Astus]

Is there one person that thinks that thoughts come and stay? This very nature of thoughts is the cause of the problem. Because thoughts come and go, people do all they can to initiate them and sustain them. The main influence society does on a person is "you have to know!" and "you have to remember!". "We all know that thoughts come and go, that is why we have to deal with it".

Impermanence and causality are easily understood and accepted by everyone, and at the same time they are the fundamental teachings that lead to enlightenment. The error we can make with thoughts is to regard them as real, as meaningful, as true and thus identify with them and create attachments. Another way to say this is the false belief in a thinker, a being that thinks and creates the thoughts, or an entity that is behind/beyond/above thoughts, i.e. the belief in a self.

"Even when all sorts of thoughts do crop up, it's only for the time being while they arise. So, just like little children of three or four who are busy at play, when you don't continue holding onto those thoughts and don't cling to any [particular] thoughts, whether they're happy or sad, not thinking about whether to stop or not to stop them — why, that's nothing else but abiding in the Unborn Buddha Mind. So keep the one mind as one mind. If you always have your mind like this, then, whether it's good things or bad, even though you're neither trying not to think them nor to stop them, they can't help but just stop of themselves."
(Bankei Zen, p. 50. tr. Haskel)

[Astus]

It's a trap.

The appropriate word is: upaya.

[oushi]

The error we can make with thoughts is to regard them as real, as meaningful, as true and thus identify with them and create attachments.

Regarding them as meaningless, and untrue will just change the perspective. In other words, you are exchanging one for another, as you have to regard "untrue/meaningless" as true.

So, meaningless and untrue has to be applied to truth and knowing itself. "Truth" is meaningless. This way the attachment to truth is severed. We all know that "truth" is something everyone clings to, and this clinging is somehow justified.

Paraphrasing, "Truth" is just a thought, and it shouldn't be regarded as real, as meaningful, as true and thus we shouldn't identify with it and create attachments.

[Astus]

From the Mirror of Seon:

"Empty your mind and reflect with clarity. You must have faith in the fact that the causal arising of each thought is actually non-arising." (32)