​Richard Hunn stated that the Five Ranks of the Caodong School are very sophisticated and quite often difficult to understand. In essence the Caodong Ch’an Method is a condensing of the teachings found within the Lankavatara Sutra. Without possessing a copy of this Sutra (which Bodhidharma brought to China in 520 CE) – the “Method” can be easily learned, preserved, and transmitted by word of mouth and through awe-inspiring deportment (hence the “odd” behaviour of many Ch’an Masters and their Disciples). Within ancient China, perhaps around only 10% of the population could read or write. Such men (normally not women) were almost always Confucian Scholar-Officials (or their students). 

​It is also true that some Ch’an Masters were also Confucian Scholars – as were Master Dong and Master Cao – who founded the Caodong School of Ch’an (the two names are reversed to express a better rhythm within Chinese-language speech patterns). Both these men understood the “Yijing” (Change Classic or “I Ching”) and were conversant in the Trigram and Hexagram ideology. This is why the Five Ranks are premised upon two Trigrams and three Hexagrams. The internal logic of how these lines “move” from one structure into another - is the underlying reasoning that serves as the foundation for the Caodong School. The minutiae of this doctrine is not the purpose of this essay (as I have published a paper on this elsewhere). 

​Within genuine Caodong lineages it is taught that the Caodong Five Ranks can be taught as “Three” levels of realisation or attainment:

​1) Guest (Form) – ordinary deluded mind within which the “Void” is not known. (Rank 1)

​2) Host (Void) – the “Void” is known to exist and a method is applied to locate and realise its presence. (Rank 2)

​3) Host-in-Host (Void-Form Integration) – the “Void” is fully realised, aligned, and integrated with the “Form”. (Rank 3, 4 & 5)

​The problem with “lists” is that they are often dry and one-dimensional. What does the above explanation mean in practical reality? The following is how this path is explained from the perspective of experiencer:

​a) When the mind is looked into – all that is seen - is the swirling chaos of delusion (Form).

​b) By applying the Hua Tou or Gongan Method – this confusion ceases, and an “empty” mind is attained. However, this “emptiness” is not permanent and must be continuously accessed through seated meditation to experience it more fully. Furthermore, even when stabilised – this experience of “emptiness” is limited only to the inside of the head. This is “Relative” enlightenment that should not be mistaken for “Full” enlightenment. Despite its limitation, nevertheless, such a realised state is far beyond the ordinary.

​c) When the “empty” mind naturally “expands” it encompass and reflects the physical body and all things within environment (the “Mirror Samadhi”). This is the attainment of “Full” enlightenment - and the realisation of the “turning about” as described in the Lankavatara Sutra. Although no further karma is produced and given that a great amount of past karma has been dissolved, the very presence of a living physical body still attracts karmic debts that may need paying. Further training is required to clear the surface mind of residual “klesa” (delusion) and to purify behavioural responses. Traditionally, the Chinese Ch’an Master refused to speak about the post-enlightenment position.  

Although eulogised more or less the world over today – Master Xu Yun attracted his fair share of criticism. Although completely indifferent to worldly affairs he was accused of being a ‘rightest’ and a ‘leftist’ at different times in his existence. Those jealous of his spiritual power (and seniority) within the Chinese Buddhist System – accused Master Xu Yun of breaking the very Vinaya Discipline he fervently enforced upon his disciples. Quite often this involved the rules surrounding sexual self-control and celibacy – with Master Xu Yun accused of participating in relations with male acolytes. Of course, there was never any material evidence to substantiate these rumours. At one time a young woman took her clothes-off in front of a meditating Master Xu Yun on a boat packed with witnesses – and he never reacted. It is speculated that this woman was paid to do this in an attempt to secure material evidence regarding Master Xu Yun breaking the Vinaya Discipline.

Part of the reason inspiring these baseless attacks involved the Imperial Japanese presence in China between 1931-1945 – which saw an attempt at manipulating the Chinese Sangha into adopting the Japanese Zen practice of NOT following the Vinaya Discipline and allowing Buddhist ‘monks’ to be married, eat meat and drink alcohol. There were some collaborative elements within a rapidly modernising Chinese culture that viewed Master Xu Yun’s attitude as being old fashioned and behind the times. Master Xu Yun, despite this pressure from without and within Chinese culture, nevertheless, refused to buckle and instead reacted with an ever-greater vigour in calling for the upholding of the Vinaya Discipline!

When told what others were negatively saying about him, Master Xu Yun would laugh and brush the insult aside. What others said was viewed by Master Xu Yun as being a product of greed, hatred, and delusion – and the very ignorance that following of the Vinaya Discipline sought to uproot and dissolve into the three-dimensional emptiness of the empty mind-ground. Just as following the Vinaya Discipline represented the pure ‘host’ position – the impure ‘guest’ position represented the dirtiness of the ordinary, mundane world and its machinations. Why follow the latter when the former offered safety, sanctuary, and a relief from human suffering? Pretending to be a ‘monk’ when immersed in the filth of the ‘guest’ position of lay-existence is NOT correctly following the Buddha-Dharma as taught by Master Xu Yun.

Master Xu Yun shuffled-off his mortal coil 64-years ago (in 1959) – on October 13th (when the Chinese Lunar Callender is converted into the Western Solar equivalent). He was in his 120th-year and had lived nearly two of the 60-years cycles that define the Chinese Zodiac. Although born in the Year of the Rat – and obviously a survivor – Master Xu Yun had no patience for superstition. Indeed, his biography is strewn with accidents, injuries, and the occasional monastic disciplining (involving corporal punishment). None of this bothered him psychologically (as he was ‘detached’ from his feelings) – even if the experience damaged him physically. The question is - how many Buddhist practitioners today are prepared to be like this?
 
All the Tang and Song Dynasty Ch’an Records pursue exactly the same task of clarifying the ‘host’ and defining the ‘guest’. The realisation of the ‘host’ is preferred – whilst the denying of the ‘guest’ is encouraged. Even so – it is clear that even within Chinese-language sources – the mistaking of one for the other is a continuous hazard. If this is true of Chinese culture – how much more difficult must it be for followers of the Dharma in the West? The Ch’an path may be direct – but this fact does NOT make it ‘easy’. Sometimes it is more convenient for individuals to follow simpler paths – even if these paths are harder – and infinitely less likely to achieve results!

Ch’an is NOT like this. As Master Xu Yun aged – his body changed dramatically. This is a reality we all face and are facing – and yet despite these profound shifts in physical existence – it is never viewed within the Ch’an tradition as anything more than changes occurring in the ‘guest’ - as the ‘host’ (which must NEVER be departed from) does NOT change one iota regardless of what happens to the physical body or the environment within which it exists. This definition of reality and priority differs significantly from what mainstream society finds interesting or important. This is the entire purpose of the Buddha-Dharma and why the Ch’an Method exists.
​
Sometimes, Master Xu Yun could NOT stand-up due to his very advanced age. This is why he is photographed sat on a chair. He did unduly NOT care about this situation as the ‘host’ position never varies – whilst the ever-changing ‘guest’ position find its place within the accommodating (and three-dimensional) emptiness. This is the eternal lesson that Master Xu Yun teaches humanity. This is the ‘host-in-host’ (that is the integration of the ‘host’ and the ‘guest’) position which transforms the ‘guest’ so that it is correctly viewed as traversing the surface of the mind - whilst remaining entirely ‘empty’ from start to finish! 

There is a significant difference between the falling into the state of ‘dull’ nothingness (as warned against by Master Xu Yun) and the realisation of genuine ‘emptiness’ within traditional Chinese Ch’an training. The difference must be properly understood if progression is to be made. ​

a) ‘Nothingness’ (Pali 'Akincanna’) - or ‘No-Something-Ness' - is the falling into ‘dull’ nothingness often mistaken as the realisation of genuine ‘emptiness’ and ‘enlightenment’ - which is still ‘post-thought’ in manifestation. ​

b) The realisation of genuine ‘Emptiness’ (Pali ‘Sunnata’) or relative enlightenment is ‘pre-thought’ - as the empty mind ground is what is perceived when no thoughts arise.  ​

What does this mean? Dull nothingness (akincanna) is a thought form with a non-descript content. In other words, a thought is generated which is defined by the usual boundaries and parameters that constitute the average structured ‘thought’ form - but the meditator misunderstands this ‘non-descript’ content and mistakenly grasps it as being the empty mind ground. The trap here is that a manifest ‘thought’ (and stream of thought) is masquerading as the psychic fabric from which all structured thought arises – and which pre-exists all thought. This state is mistaken as complete and perfect enlightenment and those trapped within it start misleading others down the wrong path. ​

By way of contrast, the state of genuine ‘emptiness’ (sunnata) is realised when all thought generation ‘ceases’ at its source – and the empty mind ground manifests and becomes apparent as its presence is no longer obscured by the continuous stream of thought which normally traverses the surface mind. No thoughts arise whatsoever and so the empty mind ground becomes perceivable. As there is a sense of ‘constriction’ - this genuine state of ‘emptiness’ realisation is termed ‘Sitting atop a hundred-foot pole’ (which is symbolic of Hinayana enlightenment), as it is accompanied by a sense of ‘peace’ and ‘tranquillity’ - but a further stage of training is required.  ​

Demystifying the enlightening experience is not a trivialisation of this experience, on the contrary, it is a clarification. As an exercise in logical thinking it also seeks to uproot and exclude the pretensions associated with pseudo-enlightenment and the exploitation contained therein. Is enlightenment a real experience? Yes – in my experience it is – but this statement should not be taken as a support for religion or religious dogma of any sort. It is a subjective experience which marks a radical shift in how an individual consciously perceives and interacts a) with consciousness itself, b) their physical body, and c) the material environment (and everything within it). I used the hua tou method for years (1989-1992) in an intense and dedicated manner, whilst living in relative isolation and receiving instruction from numerous individuals (with the guidance of Richard Hunn proving decisive). What happened? Through seated meditation throughout the day and night, I looked for certainty in a mind that was forever moving. My root consciousness would grasp this fleeting state, or that fleeting state which temporarily passed before it as being ‘the one’, as I had no real knowledge of what I was seeking. The act of regular meditation pursued through a highly regulated and disciplined outer lifestyle granted me security and stability in the physical world, so that I could direct all my available energy into the interior of my being. Endless thoughts and feelings traversed the surface of my mind and led to all kinds of vivid imaginations, usually as opposite and equal responses to the Vinaya Rules. (For instance, a complete lack of sexual activity in word, deed ad thought, led, for a time, to an intensification of thoughts and feelings premised upon ‘desire’). Initially, the surface mind would ‘quiet’ and a dull emptiness would appear – similar to a mirror made dull my smears and layers of still dust. On other occasions, this admixture of filth would manically swirl around. I could sense the true void behind this interchanging activity, but could not quite see through to it. (Later, I learned that this is stages ‘1’ and ‘2’ of the Caodong School methodology). After two years of meditation, and having my words ‘turned’ by Richard Hunn, a major (and permanent) breakthrough occurred. Whereas my words of enquiry were invariably jumping from one aspect of externality to another, Richard Hunn would expertly switch the emphasis away from the external (objective) to which I was attached – back toward the ‘root’ of the word-thought nexus, and into the empty mind ground. He performed this duty for me continuously and without fail. There was no pretence, no attachment to the external world – just Ch’an function returning to principle. 

Eventually, after being shown the empty mind ground enough times, my mind-state radically shifted. A deep and profound ‘emptiness’ manifested that was nothing but complete ‘bliss’ to experience – like a continuous sexual orgasm throughout the mind and body, but completely divorced from the sexual function. Richard Hunn explained this as stage 3 of the Caodong School – further describing this awareness as ‘relative enlightenment’. The temptation was to stay in this magnificent state and never come out of it (once described as ‘samadhi suicide’). I could imagine living in a forest or on top of a hill, and permanently experiencing this ‘bliss’ for as long as my physical body existed. However, Richard Hunn warned me against this, and stated that the journey was not yet over. Being attached to this state of ‘oneness’ and ‘bliss’ was like being detained on a journey by a deceptive gold chain. This was also the stage of being sat atop of a hundred-foot pole – the key now was to ‘jump off’ - but how to do this? Although my mind had ‘cleared’, I still subtly mistook the now calm (and reflecting) surface mind (guest), as being the profoundly empty mind’s eye (host) – without knowing at the time that I was doing this. Stages ‘4’ and ‘5’ of the Caodong School explained this, but it was a difficult teaching to understand. Richard Hunn explained that I could meditate or not, and that he was saying nothing more about any of this.  

I decided to continue to meditate and to read the sutras (particularly the ample Ch’an literature translated by Charles Luk), as previously I had not read a word for a few years. When I first read a Buddhist text (the first of any text for two years), it was like the words were tumbling from mind, through my eyes and onto the paper...  Surely an indication of what the Lankavatara Sutra terms the ‘turning about’ in the deepest recesses of the mind. This is where genuine Ch’an literature (and recorded dialogue) come into play. These enlightened (I.e. ‘non-inverted’) utterances orientate the mind and clear away confusion (although for the ego the opposite effect is observed). I altered my practice to periods of intense Ch’an meditation interspersed with elongated periods of worldly activity, as this entire affair appeared to turn on how ‘stillness’ and ‘activity’ was understood and undertaken. Richard Hunn simply advised that my ‘virya’ will carry me through. 

My mind in my head remained ‘still’ in the face of the ‘moving’ external world. For about a year I endeavoured to ‘balance’ this reality in various ways (the ‘not one’ of the ‘4th’ Caodong stage), always seeking the ‘not two’ (‘5th’ stage of the Caodong School). This is how it seemed to me then, with Richard Hunn stating that no genuine Ch’an master would say anything beyond the ‘3rd’ Caodong stage. Try as I might, I could not get beyond the duality of my ‘empty’ mind and the ‘moving’ world. I decided that the key lay in finding the ‘emptiness’ within the ‘empty’ mind. All of this was the world viewed from the ‘3rd’ stage of the Caodong School - looking inward and looking outward – there was the basic duality that I could not transcend. In the meantime, my hua tou practice matured. Whereas I had ruthlessly pursued ‘Who is hearing?’ - using the hearing capacity to control, organise and transcend the stream of thoughts in my mind, I now used this practice to simultaneously ‘return’ ALL my six senses (simultaneously) to the empty mind ground – although I always remained just this side of a major breakthrough. I began to see that ‘subject’ and ‘object’, although expediently disconnected, where in fact (and in some way) intrinsically connected. There was ‘oneness’ and there was ‘twoness’ all at once – but Richard Hunn (out of his compassionate wisdom) would not affirm or deny any validity to my observations – an I was always thrown back upon my own devices. 
​
Since my initial realisation there had been a tension of sorts. This provided the inner power to continue the journey. An ‘inner potential’ built-up through right intention, and correct meditational effort. One day, I was sat meditating out-doors, as I found the open air conducive to expanding the mind’s awareness. Whilst ‘returning’ all sensation to the empty mind ground, a gentle breeze blew across my face and front of my body. At this exact moment (around August, 1992), my perception finally altered and I adopted the ‘host’ and ‘host in host’ position – an integration of stages ‘4’ and 5’ of the Caodong School. My awareness, which had been confined only to my head, suddenly ‘expanded’ to encompass the entire environment. The awareness penetrated through my body and united the sense organs with sensory stimulus and sense objects into a profound (and empty) oneness and was vibrant and diverse. Reality was both ‘empty’ and yet ‘full’, and there was no contradiction to this understanding.  My mind finally ‘turned’ so that I now perceived the world directly through the mind’s eye (host), rather than through its reflection in the surface mind (guest). Around 8 years later (in summer, 2000), Richard Hunn confirmed this experience as being genuine and correct (although in the years between 1992 and 2000 I had travelled to Hong Kong and Mainland China to visit relatives and meet various Ch’an monastics and lay practitioners, all of whom issued the appropriate recognition).  As the ‘guest’ became the enlightened function of the ‘host’, the delusive quality was transcended so that the ‘guest’ became the ‘host’, or reality was now comprised of ‘host in host’. The ‘form’ and ‘void’ were clearly distinguishable (hence ‘not one’), and yet the ‘form’ and ‘void’ exist simultaneously integrated without contradiction, boundary or limit (hence ‘not one’). Everything continued as it was before (with Richard Hunn becoming my friend), and yet my mind was permanently (and radically) altered.