Dear B

​As far as I am aware, Master Xu Yun had studied the Yijing as a child (and youth) under the strict supervision of the numerous tutors that his (Scholar-Official) father traversed through the household. This was in preparation for Xu Yun to take the 'Scholar-Official' Government Examination - which required the rote learning of the Four Books and the Five Classics - and the meticulous replication (word for word) of required sections of each text. A good Scholar-Official must demonstrate how he would deal with each real-world incident by referring to a precise and exact extract of whichever divine-text was relevant to the situation. There could be NO deviation from this ancient (and 'perfect') process if a candidate was to be successful. Remember, tens of thousands applied - and only the low-hundreds would be 'Passed' - according to governmental needs (which meant thousands who had 'Passed' would be 'Failed' as no posts existed for them to be allocated toward). 

​On paper (and in public), Master Xu Yun always distanced himself from Confucian and Daoist Texts (the Yijing in China is considered a 'Confucian' Text). This is to be expected from a man who betrayed the will of his father and instead embraced the Path (Dharma) of the Buddha - a religion that even today is considered 'foreign' in China. To be successful on this path - Xu Yun had to completely abandon what appeared to be the worldly path as defined by Chinese convention. Therefore, the (Indian) Vinaya Discipline took the place of the Four Books and the Five Classics. If this was the cae, then why did Xu Yun (privately) advise Charles Luk to study the Yijing and integrate it with the Ch'an Path? In the UK - Richard Hunn (my primary teacher) was considered the most prominent 'Master' of the Yijing - as he could read the original (and ancient) Chinese ideograms and even lectured about this Text to ethnic Chinese students attending University in Great Britain in Putonghua!

​For our Ch'an (Caodong) Lineage (Master Xu Yun inherited and transmitted all Five Houses of Ch'an - but in his private transmission he only favoured the 'Caodong') - the Yijing is a pivotal and yet 'hidden' Text. Remember, the Caodong Masters were also experts in the study of the Yijing - and they used trigrams and hexagrams to devise the Five Ranks System. Xu Yun was the opinion that it is only through the study of the Yijing that the Caodong methodology can be truly understood. In this regard, John Blofeld was never privy to this advanced knowledge. If he met Xu Yun - it was merely for a few minutes where Blofeld (by his own admission) spouted nonsense. Of Course, I salute your efforts and you must never be afraid (as I know you are not) to pull the whiskers of the tiger! 

With Metta

Adrian

Chinese Ch'an is the method of permanently altering one's perception. This is achieved by changing 'how' and 'where' the individual places their 'attention'. The default setting for human-beings - which is linked to the evolutionary drive to survive - requires the general attention to be fixed upon the sensing of permanent (external) stimuli - as mediated through the six sense-organs. Modern science, of course, informs us that there are many more than just the assumed 'five' senses in the West (perhaps as many as 'thirty') - but these further senses are in fact specific aspects (or elements) of perception - and easily fall within the Buddha's schematic of defining the 'mind' as a 'sense'. Human ancestors had to be acutely 'aware' of their surroundings if their chances of survival were to be enhanced. 

​After the development of the human mind, body and environment - settled human culture allowed individuals to contemplate their existence. As much of this is speculative in nature - it falls under the subject of religion and spirituality - with the modern trend involving secularised conspiracy theories. The point is that there are many 'external' places (the 'guest' position) where individuals are able to place their awareness. It does not matter what belief system sustains this 'externality' - as the 'guest' position is NEVER left. The Chinese Ch'an tradition offers a methodology to alter, shift and change this orientation. 

​Chinese Ch'an does this by transitioning the default setting of human perception away from the 'guest' position - and toward the 'host' position. The 'host' position is comprised of the empty essence that underlies ALL perception. Therefore, it does not matter where an individual lives, when an individual lived - or the culture that defines the prevailing material conditions - the empty mind ground will ALWAYS underlie whatever physical structures the conditioned elements construct. Today, many spiritual schools are content to pursue a material path that encourages adherents to become attached to this or that outward manifestation - often for a large fee! Being 'attached' to whatever form of externality that takes your attention is not difficult and you certainly do not need another's permission or guidance to attain it. 

This is why a genuine Ch'an teacher is often unpopular in the world of material externality - as he or she continuously speaks and acts from the 'host' position. The genuine Ch'an teacher is a beacon of stable hope in a sea of changing uncertainty - as was the example of Master Xu Yun (1840-1959). In the meantime, words, silence, actions, and inactions - all serve to turn the adherent's attention BACK (inward) toward the empty essence of ALL material experience. If you are looking for the confirmation of your existing views and opinions (the 'guest') - then you have come to the wrong place. There are many 'businesses' out there that will sell you a robe and an ordination certificate. How's that for unpopularity?

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! 

​What about the dishonest, the the lying and the deceptive? What happens when such people 'pretend' to seek Ch'an instruction, guidance or clarification? Generally speaking, this is not a problem. If the Ch'an Teacher, Master or Guide has realised the (enlightened) 'host' position, that is the 'empty mind ground', then the questioner - regardless of their apparent 'honesty' or 'dishonesty' - simply represent the (deluded) 'guest' position, and no further explanation is required. The 'honesty' and/or 'dishonesty' of the enquirer means absolutely nothing as the moral-tone of the words such individuals use are all subject (without exception) to being 'returned' to their essential source. The Hua Tou method does not discriminate or support any form of dualistic thinking or acting. The 'enlightening' function is performed by all genuine Ch'an Masters automatically turn ALL words, regardless of the moral orientation of the enquirer, back to their empty essence. When the enquirer is subjected to this process in an appropriate manner, then all delusive constructs 'drop-away' never to arise again. The genuine Ch'an Master is indifferent and can laugh, smile, remain silent or chastise as the need arises. What matters is the realisation that there is NO action the 'guest' can take which will disrupt the 'host'! When the 'host' rests in the 'host' - the trivialities of the 'guest' have NO place to abide or function! Therefore, those who approach - 'approach' - and when 'struck-down' - they 'leave'. Nothing changes in the reflection and there is NO undue movement in the situation. 

Dear T

Thank you for your interesting email and much appreciated kind words.

If you can see the essence of each letter - then we have no business together. Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) exuded this understanding every moment - just in case. The 'hua tou' (word head) is the method whereby the 'essence' (or 'beginning') of each word-letter is clearly perceived as forming, emerging and presenting from within the empty mind ground. As the enquiry requires a certain investigative power - usually this is provided by the question 'Who?' - deployed in any manner that suits the individual. Master Xu Yun used the hua tou 'Who is dragging this corpse around?' Another effective hua tou is 'Who is hearing?' - the latter arising from the instruction contained within the Surangama Sutra (translated by my grand-teacher - Charles Luk).

Hearing in this context is not only everything that is heard with the ears - but all sensual stimulation - as all sensory stimulation arises (and returns) to the empty mind ground. Silent Illumination is nothing more than the empty mind ground - when it is fully realised, stabilised and the mind is fully extended. The hua tou 'stills' the mind (so that 'emptiness' within the head-mind is realised) - then, with further training - this realisation of 'emptiness' expands to penetrate the entire body and the environment. This is the extension of this realised 'emptness' throughout the interaction of the six-senses and the six-sense objects (that comprise the physical environment). 

The three stages of Ch'an training within the Caodong School are:

1) Surface-mind movement - delusion and confusion (guest).

2) Realised 'stillness' and 'emptiness' of mind (host).

3) Expanded awareness - whereby 'stillness' and 'emptiness' expand to incorporate the 'form' (material world) and 'void' (underlying empty mind ground). (Host-in-Host).

These three basic levels of attainment can be further subdivided into five, eight, ten or even more stages - depending upon tradition. Another way of interpreting these three stages is:

a) Delusion (the normal everyday mind).

b) Relative enlightenment ('still' mind) a sense of 'peace' limited to the individual mind - Hinayana.

c) Complete enlightenment (fully 'expanded' and permanently purified mind and senses) - Mahayana.

None of this should be of too much concern for you. If the words and letters are not returned to the empty mind ground - then we can exchange words all day long - and nothing much will happen. Recently, I was given a 'dust whisk' - imagine that! Utter madness - and yet I did not refuse it - even more unbelievable!


All Best Wishes


Adrian 

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.