Buddhahood in Chan

[Malcolm]

Again, this is just philosophical slight of hand, using the teaching of the emptiness of phenomena (shown above) to try and demonstrate that conventional phenomena are not effective borders on nihilism.

It is because conventional phenomena are effective that Chan doctrine is centered in the view of realization in this moment. One can attain this realization directly and suddenly because one's mind is actually a Buddha.

As I said, buddhas that experience delusion are buddhas only by name.

N

[Astus]

Regarding the dana-paramita (although the quoted MPPS section does not mentioned it) here is a little explanation from Dazhu Huihai:

Q: Where can one enter the doorway to this understanding?
A: Through the perfection of charity (dana-paramita).
Q: Buddha has said that the six paramitas are the action of the Bodhisattva path, so how can we enter the doorway to this understanding by practicing, as you have said, only the dana-paramita?
A: People who are confused or deluded do not understand that the other five paramitas all evolve from the dana-paramita. Therefore, in practicing the dana-paramita, one also fulfills the practice of the other five paramitas.
Q: For what reason is it called the dana-paramita?
A: "Dana" means the perfection of charity.
Q: What things can be given up in the name of charity?
A: Clinging to thoughts of duality can be given up.
Q: Just what does this mean?
A: It means to give up clinging, in the name of charity, to thoughts of good and evil, existence and non-existence, love and hate, emptiness and fullness, concentration and non-concentration, pure and impure, etc. In the name of charity, give up all of them. Then, and only then, can you attain the stage of the voidness of duality, while, at the same time, letting neither a thought about the voidness of opposites nor about charity arise. This is the genuine practice of the dana-paramita, which is also known as absolute detachment from all phenomena. This is only the voidness of all dharma-nature, which means that always and everywhere is just no-mind. If one can attain the stage of no-mind everywhere, no form will be perceived, because our self-nature is void, containing no form. This, then, is true Reality, which is also called the wonderful form or body of the Tathagata. The Diamond Sutra says: "Those who have abandoned all forms are called Buddhas."

The two accumulations of merit and wisdom are present in the mind. Emptiness is wisdom, function is compassion. Zen affirms that the trikaya is present in the nature of mind, so it is not that one has to develop wisdom for the dharmakaya and merit for rupakaya, but the buddha-mind is already perfect in all aspects. Still, that doesn't deny that there is also a gradual path of the bodhisattva, however, the gradual path doesn't deny the existence of a sudden path. Thrangu Rinpoche says that on the sutrayana it takes a long time to achieve buddhahood because they use analytical-conceptual meditation but Mahamudra uses an experiential method of directly looking at the nature of mind. A similar argument could be made in the case of Zen too.

This might help better understanding, here is Zongmi's differentiation between the five dhyanas, that is, the levels of practice:

1. With ulterior motives, one appreciates what is above, and rejects what is below, in order to cultivate. This is the dhyana of non-Buddhists.
2. Correct faith in cause and effect, one uses appreciation and revulsion, in order to cultivate.* This is the dhyana of unenlightened beings.
3. Ending rebirth through emptiness, fully realizing the true path, in order to cultivate. This is lower vehicle dhyana.
4. Comprehending the two forms of emptiness, that of the person and that of dharmas, in order to cultivate. This is Mahayana dhyana.
5. Direct (sudden) realization of the essential purity of ones own mind, originally without defilements, itself endowed with the influx-free (non-afflicted) gnosis - this mind is Buddha, ultimate with nothing else beyond - cultivating in this manner, is the Supreme Vehicle Dhyana. It is also known as the Pure Dhyana of the Tathagatas.

[kirtu]

No - Chan ideas about Buddhahood are largely a development of Yogacara influence and yogic experience.

I have read a lot of yogachara. In what Yogachara text is there anything remotely like the citations Astus as provided?

They hinge the argument on the notion that the mind is a radiant Buddha and that this can be experienced directly. This view in turn is a strong influence of Yogacara.

This is obviously false since buddhas cannot experience delusion. The Yogachara masters such as Asanga were actually strongly critical of tathagāgarbha theory.

N

That's why I said Chan had been influenced by Yogacara (and extended).

I'll have to look up the Chan explanations on this point but it comes in part from assertions in the Lanka and other sutras teaching that the whole world is mind. A lot seems to come from the Lanka + the Flower Ornament Sutra but I don't want to interject what may be more a Zen bias.

Anyway, Buddhas not being able to experience delusion: even in the Tibetan schools this can be parsed out. HHST states that this is a difference between Gelug and Sakya in that Gelug asserts that Buddhas can see suffering.

In Zen at least (and In am well aware that Astus set the context in Chan - but my reading of Sheng Yen seems to conform to the following as well) enlightenment is not actually the undeluded enlightenment of Shakyamuni because even after kensho and even satori people still can deepen their enlightenment and can be influenced by habit patterns. Thus the rhetoric says that one's enlightenment is that of Shakyamuni's but the experience is not quite there ranging as I mentioned from higher up the Path of Accumulation to the lower bhumis. The real point of Zen enlightenment is to see directly that real enlightenment is possible and to get us going in that direction as far as possible before death.

Kirt

[Malcolm]

Regarding the dana-paramita (although the quoted MPPS section does not mentioned it) here is a little explanation from Dazhu Huihai:

Q: Where can one enter the doorway to this understanding?
A: Through the perfection of charity (dana-paramita).
Q: Buddha has said that the six paramitas are the action of the Bodhisattva path, so how can we enter the doorway to this understanding by practicing, as you have said, only the dana-paramita?
A: People who are confused or deluded do not understand that the other five paramitas all evolve from the dana-paramita. Therefore, in practicing the dana-paramita, one also fulfills the practice of the other five paramitas.
Q: For what reason is it called the dana-paramita?
A: "Dana" means the perfection of charity.
Q: What things can be given up in the name of charity?
A: Clinging to thoughts of duality can be given up.
Q: Just what does this mean?
A: It means to give up clinging, in the name of charity, to thoughts of good and evil, existence and non-existence, love and hate, emptiness and fullness, concentration and non-concentration, pure and impure, etc. In the name of charity, give up all of them. Then, and only then, can you attain the stage of the voidness of duality, while, at the same time, letting neither a thought about the voidness of opposites nor about charity arise. This is the genuine practice of the dana-paramita, which is also known as absolute detachment from all phenomena. This is only the voidness of all dharma-nature, which means that always and everywhere is just no-mind. If one can attain the stage of no-mind everywhere, no form will be perceived, because our self-nature is void, containing no form. This, then, is true Reality, which is also called the wonderful form or body of the Tathagata. The Diamond Sutra says: "Those who have abandoned all forms are called Buddhas."

It has already been pointed how the realization of emptiness of a first stage bodhisattva is identical in content to the realization of emptiness of a Buddha. But surely you admit that there is a difference between a first stage bodhisasattva and Buddha. If there is no difference in terms of the nature of reality, what then do you think the difference is?

The two accumulations of merit and wisdom are present in the mind. Emptiness is wisdom, function is compassion. Zen affirms that the trikaya is present in the nature of mind, so it is not that one has to develop wisdom for the dharmakaya and merit for rupakaya, but the buddha-mind is already perfect in all aspects. Still, that doesn't deny that there is also a gradual path of the bodhisattva, however, the gradual path doesn't deny the existence of a sudden path. Thrangu Rinpoche says that on the sutrayana it takes a long time to achieve buddhahood because they use analytical-conceptual meditation but Mahamudra uses an experiential method of directly looking at the nature of mind. A similar argument could be made in the case of Zen too.

Mahāmudra is part of secret mantra. Since the methods of mahāmudra do not exist in Zen, a similar argument cannot be made.

This might help better understanding, here is Zongmi's differentiation between the five dhyanas, that is, the levels of practice:

5. Direct (sudden) realization of the essential purity of ones own mind, originally without defilements, itself endowed with the influx-free (non-afflicted) gnosis - this mind is Buddha, ultimate with nothing else beyond - cultivating in this manner, is the Supreme Vehicle Dhyana. It is also known as the Pure Dhyana of the Tathagatas.

This is no different than the realization of a first stage bodhisattva. What then is the difference between a Buddha and first stage bodhisattva? You have still failed to answer this point.

N

[Malcolm]

I'll have to look up the Chan explanations on this point but it comes in part from assertions in the Lanka and other sutras teaching that the whole world is mind. A lot seems to come from the Lanka + the Flower Ornament Sutra but I don't want to interject what may be more a Zen bias.

What the Lanka discusses is sudden or gradual entry in suchness, not sudden or gradual buddhahood.

Anyway, Buddhas not being able to experience delusion: even in the Tibetan schools this can be parsed out. HHST states that this is a difference between Gelug and Sakya in that Gelug asserts that Buddhas can see suffering.

This does not mean that buddhas experience delusion, merely that their omniscience, itself illusory, is capable of apprehending illuory objects of knowledge, re: Haribhadra.

In Zen at least (and In am well aware that Astus set the context in Chan - but my reading of Sheng Yen seems to conform to the following as well) enlightenment is not actually the undeluded enlightenment of Shakyamuni because even after kensho and even satori people still can deepen their enlightenment and can be influenced by habit patterns. Thus the rhetoric says that one's enlightenment is that of Shakyamuni's but the experience is not quite there ranging as I mentioned from higher up the Path of Accumulation to the lower bhumis.

The point is to distinguish rhetoric from what is actual.

[kirtu]

The point is to distinguish rhetoric from what is actual.

Well - how do you determine if someone has attained some degree of awakening? Actually Zen teachers do address this point. One's mileage may vary however .... Were any of the Zen teachers of the past 100 years enlightened? What would it mean to be enlightened in the Chan/Zen sense (this thread began with that question didn't it?)? Even within the Chan/Zen communities there will be differing opinions.

Kirt

[Malcolm]

The point is to distinguish rhetoric from what is actual.

Well - how do you determine if someone has attained some degree of awakening?

It is very difficult, virtually impossible, really.

[kirtu]

The point is to distinguish rhetoric from what is actual.

Well - how do you determine if someone has attained some degree of awakening?

It is very difficult, virtually impossible, really.

Right but Chan and Zen doctrine and teachers do address it and the result is a kind of continuum of awakening. Fundamentally are people naturally engaged in reducing suffering would be one response. As you have noted with Astus much of what Chan or Zen says is really about the 1st bhumi in the bhumi and paths classification.

Keeps people off the streets and from doing harm and keeps them going working for the welfare of beings.

Kirt

[Malcolm]

Right but Chan and Zen doctrine and teachers do address it and the result is a kind of continuum of awakening.

All teachingsa address how one can tell if one is awakened, and to a limited extent, how others can tell. It is still very difficult.

Fundamentally are people naturally engaged in reducing suffering would be one response.

That is not a good criteria. Christians will say their faith lessens their suffering. Would you then say that Christian faith is comparable to Buddhist awakening?

As you have noted with Astus much of what Chan or Zen says is really about the 1st bhumi in the bhumi and paths classification.

That was what I said, but Astus does not accept this.

[kirtu]

Right but Chan and Zen doctrine and teachers do address it and the result is a kind of continuum of awakening.

All teachingsa address how one can tell if one is awakened, and to a limited extent, how others can tell. It is still very difficult.

It seems to me to be a bit of hyperbole - Tibetan teachings do address awakening but it's all inferential and usually seems glossed as far as the Path of Preparation and bhumis are concerned (unless one takes it literally that a 1st bhumi Bodhisattva can physically emanate 100 bodies, etc.). As far as Buddhahood itself, complete purification of all negativities and the complete perfection of all positive qualities as a start. Of course most people will fall a little short here ...

Fundamentally are people naturally engaged in reducing suffering would be one response.

That is not a good criteria. Christians will say their faith lessens their suffering. Would you then say that Christian faith is comparable to Buddhist awakening?

There was a Zen teacher who said that Christian, Muslim, etc. teachings were in fact a lower level of awakening. Some Zen teachers allow this. I wouldn't doubt that some Chan teachers in modern times do too. Clearly some Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Baha'i, Hindu, etc. practitioners DO fit the bill of being 100% loving, caring, compassionate, inspiring, holy, etc. Real tzaddikim for example. Every faith teaching can and has produced real saints. So it's in this vein.

As you have noted with Astus much of what Chan or Zen says is really about the 1st bhumi in the bhumi and paths classification.

That was what I said, but Astus does not accept this.

I know. But actually Chan/Zen does have a somewhat different view of Buddhahood. It's an active nirmanakaya functioning in the world.

Kirt

[Astus]

"What then is the difference between a Buddha and first stage bodhisattva?"

It depends on how the first stage and how a buddha is interpreted. Here's one interpretation from Wonhyo's commentary to the Vajrasamadhi Sutra that is based on the Huayan view,

"the first bhûmi in fact encompasses all ten bhûmis, for in one moment one may suddenly access the ten types of dharmadhOEtus. The ten bhûmis are in fact the first bhûmi, for all [ten] may instantly be completely fulfilled at this initial gate [of the first bhûmi]. Owing to the fact that the ten bhûmis are in fact the first bhûmi, [the first bhûmi] is called the “one.” But because the first bhûmi is in factthe ten bhûmis, it is also “many.” Consequently, [the first bhûmi] is called the “one-and-many bhûmi.”"

In a similar fashion it is discussed by those who few (Zongmi, Jinul) who attempted to connect Chan with the doctrinal teachings, mainly Huayan. So it is not much different from what you say, however, they called sudden enlightenment not the entry to the first bhumi but the entry to the level of faith which is the first of the 52 levels. That makes your interpretation of Chan's sudden enlightenment a lot more positive than theirs. On the other hand, their interpretation is a bit more complex, as it is briefly explained by Buswell in a footnote:

"The "Brahmacarya" chapter of the Avatamsaka Sutra states that the initial arising of the bodhicitta-the thought of enlightenment-which occurs at the entrance to the bodhisattva path at the first abiding stage is equivalent to the final achievement of Buddhahood (HYCb, p. 449c). This is the hallmark of the complete teachings, the fifth of the five divisions of the teachings recognized by the early Huayen patriarchs. With the awakening to the Buddha-wisdom which is inherent in his own self-nature, the bodhisattva is fully endowed with all the qualities of Buddhahood in their potential form. Only his habitual patterns of thought and behavior must be adjusted through gradual cultivation until Buddhahood is finally actualized. Nevertheless, as the bodhisattva has understood through his initial awakening that these residual habits are essentially void, no cultivation is actually done throughout that period. Therefore, once the innate Buddha-wisdom is recognized at the beginning of the bodhisattva path, Buddhahood has already been achieved."

Thus it is explained in a doctrine oriented way the achievement of complete enlightenment at the moment of realising the nature of mind. From a more common Chan perspective all the stages and classifications are so much hot air and entangling views. Hongren - who lived before Chan turned totally to the doctrine of subitism - wrote in his treatise, "The foregoing dialogues could be expanded endlessly, my hope for now is that you will become conscious that your own basic mind is Buddha. This is why I exhort you so earnestly, nothing the in the thousands of scriptures and myriads of treatises surpasses preserving the basic true mind - this is essential." Later, now in the developed Zen form, we find the following story expressing the same view, "Tokusan brought his notes on the Diamond Sutra to the front of the hall, pointed to them with a torch, and said, "Even though you have exhausted the abtruse doctrines, it is like placing a hair in a vast space. Even though you have learned all the secrets of the world, it is like a drop of water dripped on the great ocean." And he burned all his notes. Then, making bows, he took his leave of his teacher."

Zhaozhou, when once instructing the assembly, said, "I do not enjoy hearing the word 'Buddha'". It's that "buddhahood" is still strongly connected to doctrines and ideas. Dahui quoted one of Pang-yun's poems,

"Mind is Thus and objects are also Thus:
There is no true and also no false.
Existence doesn't concern me,
Nor does nonexistence hold me:
I'm not a holy sage,
But an ordinary fellow who understands things."

So, even if it sounds lot of "sophistry" and "sleight of hand", Chan focuses on immediate experience of the ultimate and so there aren't many discussions on bodhisattva stages, because having "stages", "levels" and "grades" of enlightenment are all ideas of "how it could be", while directly attaining no-thought and maintaining it in all situations - that's why I protested against the distinction of equipoise and post-equipoise - is the essential teaching and realisation.

[Malcolm]

"What then is the difference between a Buddha and first stage bodhisattva?"

It depends on how the first stage and how a buddha is interpreted. Here's one interpretation from Wonhyo's commentary to the Vajrasamadhi Sutra that is based on the Huayan view,

"the first bhûmi in fact encompasses all ten bhûmis, for in one moment one may suddenly access the ten types of dharmadhOEtus. The ten bhûmis are in fact the first bhûmi, for all [ten] may instantly be completely fulfilled at this initial gate [of the first bhûmi]. Owing to the fact that the ten bhûmis are in fact the first bhûmi, [the first bhûmi] is called the “one.” But because the first bhûmi is in factthe ten bhûmis, it is also “many.” Consequently, [the first bhûmi] is called the “one-and-many bhûmi.”"

This is just intellectual contrivance.

In a similar fashion it is discussed by those who few (Zongmi, Jinul) who attempted to connect Chan with the doctrinal teachings, mainly Huayan. So it is not much different from what you say, however, they called sudden enlightenment not the entry to the first bhumi but the entry to the level of faith which is the first of the 52 levels. That makes your interpretation of Chan's sudden enlightenment a lot more positive than theirs. On the other hand, their interpretation is a bit more complex, as it is briefly explained by Buswell in a footnote:

That makes the term 'sudden buddhahood" meaningless since it is far below the path of seeing, this so called "buddha" has not even recognized emptiness. No wonder people are confused.

So, even if it sounds lot of "sophistry" and "sleight of hand", Chan focuses on immediate experience of the ultimate

The first of the 52 bhumis is not anywhere near the path of seeing, so there is no immediate experience of the ultimate that can even be discussed.

and so there aren't many discussions on bodhisattva stages, because having "stages", "levels" and "grades" of enlightenment are all ideas of "how it could be", while directly attaining no-thought and maintaining it in all situations - that's why I protested against the distinction of equipoise and post-equipoise - is the essential teaching and realisation.

You protested, but did not answer my observation concerning the idenity of the content of a first bodhisattvas realization and a buddha's realization.

In the end, all you have succeeded in showing is that Chan is systematically incoherent.

N

[Malcolm]

It seems to me to be a bit of hyperbole - Tibetan teachings do address awakening but it's all inferential and usually seems glossed as far as the Path of Preparation and bhumis are concerned (unless one takes it literally that a 1st bhumi Bodhisattva can physically emanate 100 bodies, etc.).

These are manomāyakāyas, not physical bodies.

N

[Malcolm]

So it's in this vein.

Which contradicts what the Buddha said about there being no persons of the four ranks of āryas outside of his dharma and vinaya.

N

[kirtu]

It seems to me to be a bit of hyperbole - Tibetan teachings do address awakening but it's all inferential and usually seems glossed as far as the Path of Preparation and bhumis are concerned (unless one takes it literally that a 1st bhumi Bodhisattva can physically emanate 100 bodies, etc.).

These are manomāyakāyas, not physical bodies.

N

Tibetan teaching on the lower paths and the first bhumi can be summarized as "where there's smoke there's fire." But it's extraordinary smoke ....

Manomayakayas: mental bodies? For the purpose of teaching through visions or can they appear as physical bodies to aid beings directly?

Kirt

[Astus]

"This is just intellectual contrivance."

Yes, so is the whole stages system. No, it is a summary of the Huayan view of the first bhumi.

"The first of the 52 bhumis is not anywhere near the path of seeing, so there is no immediate experience of the ultimate that can even be discussed."

You make the mistake of identifying one interpretation of the bodhisattva stages with another.

"You protested, but did not answer my observation concerning the idenity of the content of a first bodhisattvas realization and a buddha's realization.
In the end, all you have succeeded in showing is that Chan is systematically incoherent."

What I showed is that both "first stage" and "buddhahood" are relative terms that depend on interpretation. Unless you give a definition you want to base the comparison on your question can't be answered, or it can be answered in any way.

[Malcolm]

"This is just intellectual contrivance."

Yes, so is the whole stages system. No, it is a summary of the Huayan view of the first bhumi.

No, it is a Huayen view of the initial production of bodhicitta, which is the entrance to the path of accumulation.

"The first of the 52 bhumis is not anywhere near the path of seeing, so there is no immediate experience of the ultimate that can even be discussed."

You make the mistake of identifying one interpretation of the bodhisattva stages with another.

No, since the first bodhisattva stage of the dasabhumika follows the path of seeing. It is not an issue of "mistakes" or "interpretations".

What I showed is that both "first stage" and "buddhahood" are relative terms that depend on interpretation. Unless you give a definition you want to base the comparison on your question can't be answered, or it can be answered in any way.

No, since the ten stages are treated the same way. In Chinese Buddhism they are merely encased within an alternate scheme, but when I say first bhumi, I mean the first bodhisattva bhumi as described in the Dasabhumika sutra. If you wish to be a sophist, and pretend that you do not understand this, that is your problem, but it reveals sophistry on your part and an inability to maintain a coherent argument.

N

[Malcolm]

It seems to me to be a bit of hyperbole - Tibetan teachings do address awakening but it's all inferential and usually seems glossed as far as the Path of Preparation and bhumis are concerned (unless one takes it literally that a 1st bhumi Bodhisattva can physically emanate 100 bodies, etc.).

These are manomāyakāyas, not physical bodies.

N

Tibetan teaching on the lower paths and the first bhumi can be summarized as "where there's smoke there's fire." But it's extraordinary smoke ....

Manomayakayas: mental bodies? For the purpose of teaching through visions or can they appear as physical bodies to aid beings directly?

Kirt

The one hundred bodies emanated by a first stage bodhisattva are for the purpose of visiting buddhas in other nirmankāya buddhafields.

N

[Malcolm]

Yes, so is the whole stages system.

No, the bhumis are measures of qualities, the paths are measures of realization. This is why the āryan path has only three phases: the path of seeing, the path of cultivation and the path of no more training. The ten bodhisattva stages are included within both the path of seeing (first bhumi) and the path of cultivation (first bhumi to tenth bhumi). The path of no more training is Buddhahood.

[kirtu]

These are manomāyakāyas, not physical bodies.

N

Tibetan teaching on the lower paths and the first bhumi can be summarized as "where there's smoke there's fire." But it's extraordinary smoke ....

Manomayakayas: mental bodies? For the purpose of teaching through visions or can they appear as physical bodies to aid beings directly?

Kirt

The one hundred bodies emanated by a first stage bodhisattva are for the purpose of visiting buddhas in other nirmankāya buddhafields.

N

I'm sure you would agree that that is quite a high standard. Unless a dream or visionary experience I haven't heard anyone doing that recently .... and it doesn't help the homeless people outside my building.

Kirt