​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.  

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

At certain times it seems more appropriate to remember particular events - whilst at others it is more in keeping (and more opportune) to just let certain dates and times to quietly go by without making any comment. Ch'an certainly has no interest in the conventions of the world - and Ch'an Masters even less! Bodies come into existence and then pass-away - utilising various time-frames inbetween. Society 'measures' these time-spans for scientific reasons - but all the Ch'an Method is concerned about is that each individual 'realises' the empty mind ground! Remembering the physical existence - and the 'joy' Richard Hunn's presence in the world symbolised - the Ch'an Method insists that we 'remember' to 'look' within so that we can directly perceive the 'empty mind ground' with clarity and without interruption! Richard Hunn lived for fifty-seven years and every one of those years emerged from (and eventually returned to) the empty mind ground. This image above, for instance, is a bridge situated in the remote and surrounding (mountainous) areas outside of the City of Kyoto - the place he lived within from 1991-2006. Richard Hunn was engaged in studying the origins of Chinese Ch'an in Japan - and whilst doing this he visited many and numerous Zen Temples and was introduced to 'old' ethnic Japanese martial arts teachers who lived in seclusion whilst practicing 'Chinese' martial arts systems 'outside' of the official grading system of 'coloured belts' authorised by the Japanese Government (usually possessing only a single disciple whose family possessed the financial means to support this sibling and his or her Master). Such Japanese teachers have to live in a remote and simplistic poverty as a form of 'punishment' - as such individuals are not entitled to the generous financial, material and political support afforded to the so-called 'Japanese' martial arts systems 'preferred' by the Japanese Establishment! The point is that Richard Hunn studied a broad segment of Japanese culture - making his living teaching the English language and English literature at Kyoto University. He travelled widely throughout Japan - lived in an old Samurai Cottage - and made effective attempts to see 'through' the preferences and bias of modern Japanese culture - seeing the Chinese roots of much of Japanese culture that is now denied, ridiculed or even actively negated in Japan! In the material realms of study, science and academia all this data collecting is of vital research importance - but none of it transcends the need for the Ch'an Method and the need to effectively 'look' within! This is why I remember the two sides of Richard Hunn - the academic who traversed the material environment making important notes and observations - and the Ch'an Master who effectively 'looked' within, whilst helping others to do the same! 

​When deploying the Ch'an Method in the West - it is often the case the the recipient does comprehend even the most basic requirements of Ch'an! This is despite shaving their heads, wearing robes and hiding behind foreign names... They think this dualistic attitude is Ch'an and the legitimate Ch'an Method is nothing but a dualistic attitude! Such people defend their ego and want their teachers to defend their egos also. Anyone who displays genuine Ch'an, however, is treated by these people as 'errors' and individuals who possess no 'wisdom' or 'liberating ability!' This if the False Ch'an that is popular, well funded, and very popular. By comparison, genuine Ch'an works from the shadows and influences existence without seeking recognition or even being understood that it is present! Void is forever present, but False Ch'an resides strictly within the realm of 'Form' to which it is attached. Genuine Ch'an is effective because it underlies all phenomena without discrimination. Even False Ch'an arises from the empty mind ground but its practitioners do not want to know this or realise it for themselves, and remain stuck within the world of material attachment. With such profound stupidity - there is not even enough stable area to administer thirty blows with a stick!

This are practices within Chinese Buddhist traditions and were emphasised by Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) - particularly as a means to eradicate any corruption that had arisen in various monastic communities – either in essence or in practice. Master Xu Yun taught that all Ch’an monastic communities must be ‘non-attached’ to events of the world and hold no overt political opinions. As the Buddha-Dharma is beyond such changing conditions – there should be nothing that delays a monastic cultivating enlightenment in the world and adjusting themselves to circumstance. It is the Dharma that is paramount and not the expedient world (which passes across the surface of the mind like so many substanceless clouds). Fighting for justice in the world is really defending the Dharma in all situations. This must be achieved through Dharmic methods that are free of greed, hatred and delusion. Whereas the Roman Catholic Church in China refused to subordinate itself to the ‘new’ Chinese government in 1955/1956 (causing all kinds of trouble amongst the people) - Master Xu Yun firmly stated that the Chinese Buddhist establishment must never oppose the Chinese government and align itself with ‘foreign’ movements that do not have the best interests of the Chinese people as their guiding ideology! How is this attitude achieved? Master Xu Yun stated that the ‘Fivefold Mediation’, the ‘Three Cumulative Conditions’ and the ‘Ten Prohibitions’ must be correctly cultivated so that there is no doubt: 

The Fivefold Meditation Consists of the following profound achievements: 

1) The ‘Real’ is directly realised as the ‘Empty Mind Ground’ (noumenon). 

2) The ‘strength’ and ‘purity’ of such insight ‘wipes-out’ all transient phenomena. 

3) The realisation of an all-embracing wisdom equals the perfect ‘integration’ of ‘form’ (phenomena) with ‘void’ (noumena). 

4) Within this enlightened reality is the inherent element of infinite compassion for the liberation of all beings. 
​
5) This infinite compassion is permeated with universal kindness for all beings. 
​
(Much of this Ch’an approach is maintained in the Brahmajala Sutra – the Sutra of the Bodhisattva Rules).  

The Three Cumulative Conditions: 

1) Do no evil in word, deed or thought. 

2) Do only good in word, deed and thought. 

3) Continuously benefit all sentient beings in word, deed and thought. 
​
(Distillation of the Bodhisattva Vows).  

The Ten Prohibitions: 

1) Not to take life. 

2) Not to steal. 

3) Not to commit adultery. 

4) Not to lie. 

5) Not to take intoxicating liquor. 

6) Not to take food out of regulated hours. 

7) Not to use garlands or perfumes. 

8) Not to sleep on high or broad beds. 

9) Not to witness or participate in sing or dancing. 

10) To refrain from handling minted (or non-minted) gold.  

(This is a condensation of the Vinaya Rules) 

English Language Reference: 

Charles Luk: Empty Cloud, The Autobiography of the Chinese Zen Master Xu Yun, Edited by Richard Hunn, Element, (1988), Pages 198-201 

I respect the Theravada School and have trained with its monks and nuns many times. I admire its Dhamma and work to protect and preserve it in Sri Lanka, Thailand and Myanmar, etc. However, there are certain differences of view which I wish to explore (although in my own training, I see no difference). The Theravada view (for many but not all) is that the senses are purified when the body (and mind) is removed from direct contact with a polluting environment (such as when entering a forest temple or monastery, etc). Only a monastic can purify their minds fully, with a lay man purifying his mind to a lesser degree than the average monastic, but certainly more so than a lay woman. The Ch’an School rejects this view. As the empty mind ground underlies ALL phenomenal existence, the idea that only monks (or nuns) can fully realise it does not hold, and is contradicted by the numerous examples of enlightened lay men and women in the Pali Suttas, and the Ch’an tradition (including children) within China (Vimlakirti is perhaps the greatest Indian example), but what does this difference mean in reality? The Theravada method suggests that enlightenment - I.e. the uprooting of greed, hatred and delusion – is dependent upon circumstance and is only possible if an individual is ‘removed’ from direct contact with the ordinary world. Then, the corrupting influence of the three taints diminishes and eventually falls away (as all stimulus ceases). However, should such an individual be plummeted back into the ordinary world, then this deluded mechanism would re-active and the mind be yet again consumed by greed, hatred and delusion.  The Ch’an method ensures that whilst living in isolation, or at least relative peace for a while, the mind calms to a considerable degree so that the hua tou and gong-an methods can ‘return’ ALL sensory stimulus back to the empty mind ground from which it originated. Once the hearing has been returned, all the other five senses are also returned, and the empty mind ground fully penetrated and realised. This experience automatically ‘purifies’ the six senses in a permanent manner that cannot ever be re-corrupted. This is why the Ch’an School advocates the ‘Ch’an Week’, or periods of intense meditative activity interspersed with weeks (or months) of quite ordinary and mundane activity. This explains why many Ch’an monastics either return to lay life to spread compassion and wisdom throughout society, or hold office or other positions within the lay world as monastics with no problem whatsoever. It makes no difference where their expedient body resides, as the six senses have been fully imbued (and transformed) through the presence of a pervasive and all-embracing ‘emptiness’ which is as purifying as it is compassionate and full of loving kindness. This reality further explains why many Ch’an practitioners refuse to ordain in China, as there is no need to do so.  

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.