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.
0 Comments
Dear B Douglas Harding used to hold Zen meditation sessions by lying on the floor. He had no time for formal structure - as 'having no head' also apparently meant that 'he had no body' - although most people who encounter his work seem not to realise the latter. Richard Hunn knew John Blofeld and Douglas Harding - although if he knew Terrence Grey - nothing was said to me. Blofeld mentions meeting Xu Yun - but Xu Yun does not mention meeting Blofeld. This need not negate the encounter - as Xu Yun was photographed with numerous Westerners - many of whom are not mentioned in his biography. In the UK - the barbarous treatment meted-out by the Imperial Japanese Army to British POWs and civilians is still remembered with disgust and derision - as is their savage treatment toward tens of millions of Asian victims. Just what Blofeld is talking about does not ring true. Richard told me that Blofeld eventually retired to Thailand - and 'gave-up' Buddhism in the last years of his life - becoming anti-Asian and pro-Christian, so perhaps his wayward attitudes express these changes. I inherited Charles Luk's papers, and having looked through the volumes, I can say that there is no mention of John Blofeld, Douglas Harding or Terrence Grey. Charles Luk was opposed to Japanese religious corruption and actively campaigned against it. He certainly would not have assisted Blofeld if he knew of his pro-Japanese attitudes. As to hilly Hong Kong mountains - he is probably speaking of the Sai Kung area of the New Territories - where our Ancestrial village used to be. As the area is now a 'National Park' - the US social media has extended the so-called '411' mythology to include this area. Whenever I visited the area - I used to make sure I was with Chinese relatives who knew where they were going. Yes - Richard Hunn gave me his copy of John Blofeld's Yijing. It is a peperback to which Richard added a stouter cover. Of course, it is not the full Yijing, but only the Hexagrams, its line commentaries, the Judgements and Images. From what I can see, I believe Blofeld is copying Wilhelm and is not working from the original Chinese language text. It is a re-interpretation of a translation. Of course, I suspect there are hundreds of these re-interprtations in the English language by now - and that a certain selection can grant an overview of the original text. I am told that an astonishing 600,000 Americans go missing each year in well sign-posted National Parks and National Forests - although all but 6,000 are found safe and well - and that this finding is through the application of the scientific method. When people's lives are at stake I doubt superstition can replace logic and reason. In the days that Blofeld is referring to - the New Territories were strewn with hundreds of villages - many of them Hakka (he does not know this because he never went there). The distance between villages was quite often miniscule. I would say that getting truly lost would have been very difficult as there were settlements everywhere. These are the settlements the Imperial Japanese Army raped and pillaged their way through - killing at least 10,000 people in a relatively small area (1941-1945). The Yijing certainly did not assist the ethnic Chinese escape this fate. One last point that Blofeld is missing is that the Imperial Japanese Government 'banned' everything 'Chinese' - and this included the study of the Yijing. Blofeld is, therefore, misinformed and I would say, not to be trusted. With Metta Adrian
Dear J
Thank you for your interesting email. Richard Hunn spent much of his mature years working upon a full Chinese-English translation of the Yijing whilst working with a British publisher at a time when such an idea was unheard of in the West. The problem was that this publisher wanted to change many aspects of the translation and Richard Hunn disagreed - as these changes would alter the intended meaning of the translation. Due to these creatiive difference - the Publisher eventually pulled the plug and the project was shelved (in the late 1980s). Nowadays, translations like this are fairly common in the West (many produced by ethnic Chinese scholars) - so perhaps Richard Hunn was ahead of his time! As well as studying the available Richard Wilhelm translation (in its various guises) - Richard Hunn thought highly of the concise (English) translation generated by John Blofeld (not very well-known today). Although Richard Hunn would spend much of his time reading the original Chinese language version of the Yijing presented to him by Charles Luk (1898-1978). John Blofeld translation is only the 64 Hexagrams and the directly related commentary material (together with the 'line' commentaries) excluding the Ten Wings content. This is similar in structure to the various 'Pocket' or 'Concise' editions of Wilhelm (premised upon the 1950 edition translated by Cary F. Baynes from the German into the English language). John Blofeld's rendering of the Yijing, however, is a very different English language translation than that generated by Wilhelm-Baynes (Richard Hunn personally knew John Blofeld - despite Richard being much younger than John). John Blofeld ended his days living in Thailand (I believe with his Asian family). Once a suitable translation of the Yijing is secured - as there are many today - then it is a matter of a) intellectually studying the history and meaning of the text as if it were a typical (narrative) subject similar to academic history or philosophy, etc, and/or b) taking the exactly opposite approach of relating to the Hexagram and related text (including the Ten Wings) - in a direct and existential manner which draws the totality of the 'past' and the 'future' into the 'eternal' present. This replicates today exactly how the original 'Zhouyi' a) developed over time, and b) was used 'directly' by the Diviners of the Zhou Kings! Of course, Chinese language tradition talks of earlier (but similar) divinity manuals existing during the Xia and Shang Dynasty. Best Wishes Adrian Dear Ben
Wilhelm's translation was ground-breaking - but remains a snapshot of his own ideas and misunderstandings. Yes - it is a good literal translation - word for word - but makes no sense when read because he did not really know (or understand) the historical, cultural and philosophical context of a) each hexagram and b) each hexagram in relation to the totality of the 'meaning' of the Yijing. How could he know these things? He was a German; Protestant Christian and this upbringing does not automatically confer an innate cultural understanding about certain aspects of China's feudalistic past! The scope of Wilhelm's achievement is often used to obscure the deviancies of his translations and the hopeless trap of 'Eurocentrism' he often got himself into. For instance, Hexagram 52 (䷳) is symbolic of a 'mountain' placed over a 'mountain' and is referred to as '艮' (gen4). However, his misunderstanding of Buddhist 'nirvana' is laughable but thought 'quaint' in the West! Both mountains assert a joint (simultaneous) 'downward' pressure from which neither can escape. Therefore, 'stillness' is achieved due to there being a 'rootedness' present - a certain gravitas operating equally through the mind, body and environment. A true scholar has aligned his or her bone-structure through calming the mind and allowing the bodyweight to drop into the ground through the feet - whilst passing through the centre of the bone (and stimulating the bone-marrow). Although this normally elicits a 'rebounding' force as the bodyweight bounces of the floor it impacts - in this instance the 'downward' force is so powerful that the onus is always 'toward the ground'. This should represent a time of extraordinary psychological and physical 'discipline' OR 'oppression' in the outer physical world that can be used as a form of inner 'discipline' as a means of coping with the pressure. Hexagram 52 is like perpetually 'drawing a bow' and yet never letting the arrow 'fly'... There is a perfect 'stillness' within movement - with such a build-up of explosive energy, what will happen next? As for the name of the hexagram - '艮' (gen4) - the upper particle '目' (mu4) represents an 'eye' on a 'face' - whilst the lower particle '匕' (bi3) which historically represents a type of deep and wide 'spoon' (common in China) as well as a 'dagger' - or stabbing implement. There is also the suggestion of an individual 'firing an arrow' or being 'struck by an arrow' - whilst on occasion this ideogram might be written as '妣' (bi3) which represents a 'post-humous' designation for one's deceased mother. Sometimes, there is a discord between the symbolic meaning of the hexagrams and the ideograms used to describe that meaning. Why is this? It could be that as time has gone by, scribes have either accidently miscopied texts by hand, or misunderstood the meaning of what they were copying and made unnecessary corrections and adjustments assuming they were putting right previous errors, etc. It could also be that as time progresses the assumed overt or implied meaning of a hexagram has undergone evolutionary development and that this has created a discord between the inherent meaning of the hexagram and the obvious meaning of the descriptive ideogram. Of course, looking at we have there are two references to weaponry (dagger and arrow), one reference to an eating implement whilst another reference is to being 'dead'. However, we must not forget that an 'eye' is watching over all that unfolds. A weapon and a spoon require mastery if combat (and cooking) is to be truly mastered. Furthermore, when a person 'dies' their body becomes 'still'. A weapon can 'kill' - but before it does the user must perfect is usage which requires a knowledge of 'when' (action) and 'when not' (stillness) to use it. The bow may be drawn but yet fired. If there is no food to eat, one becomes 'still' and ceases to 'move'. A spoon can serve food that exists or remain 'still' when no food is forthcoming. This hexagram seems to indicate the self-aware ability of remaining both inwardly and outwardly 'still' when circumstances a) allow for it, or are b) demand it. Just some thoughts. With Metta Adrian |
Archives
October 2024
Categories
All
|