Buddhist monasticism is flexible. Although it is correct to assume that it is usually necessary for an individual to undergo a period of isolatory training (to establish and stabilise the realisation of the void) - it is also true that compassionate (Bodhisattva) activity must also be pursued throughout the myriad conditions that define worldly existence. This is true of all Buddhist traditions - as even the Bhikkhus of the Theravada School must "walk" (in a self-aware manner) through the surrounding (lay) villages - begging for food on a daily basis. Living a hermitic or cloistered existence is a means to an end and not an end in itself. Of course, this period may be repeated more than once and last any length of time. When entering different situations - the Bodhisattva does not lose sight of the realised void regardless of the external conditions experienced. The Sixth Patriarch (Hui Neng) spent around 15 years living with bandits and barbarians in the hills - retaining a vegetarian diet - even though he was not yet formally ordained in the Sangha. Within China, the Mahayana Bhikshu must take the hundreds of Vinaya Discipline Vows as well as the parallel Bodhisattva Vows (the former requires complete celibacy whilst the latter requires moral discipline but not celibacy). Anyone can be a "Bodhisattva" - whilst a formal Buddhist monastic must adhere to the discipline of the Vinaya Discipline. A lay Buddhist person also adheres to the Vinaya Discipline - but only upholds the first Five, Eight or Ten vows, etc. Vimalakirti is an example of an Enlightened Layperson whose wisdom was complete and superior to those who were still wrapped in robes and sat at the foot of a tree. In the Mahasiddhi stories preserved within the Tanrayana tradition - the realisation of the empty mind ground (or all-embracing void) renders the dichotomy between "ordained" and "laity" redundant. The Chinese-language Vinaya Discipline contains a clause which allows, under certain conditions, for an individual to self-perform an "Emergency" ordination. This is the case if the individual lives in isolation and has no access to the ordained Sangha or any other Buddhist Masters, etc. The idea is that should such expertise become available - then the ordination should be made official. However, the Vinaya Disciple in China states that a member of the ordained Sangha is defined in two-ways: 1) An individual who has taken both the Vinaya and Bodhisattva Vows - and has successfully completed all the required training therein. 2) Anyone who has realised "emptiness". Of course, in China all Buddhists - whether lay or ordained - are members of the (general) Sangha. The (general) Sangha, however, is led by the "ordained" Sangha. As lay-people (men, women, and children) can realise "emptiness" (enlightenment) - such an acommplished individual transitions (regardless of circustance) into the "ordained" Sangha. This is true even if such a person has never taken the Vinaya or Bodhisattva Vows - regardless of their lifestyle or position within society. Such an individual can be given a special permission to wear a robe in their daily lives - but these individuals do not have to agree with this. Realising "emptiness" is the key to this transformative process. Emptiness can be realised during seated meditation, during physical labour (or exercise), or during an enlightened dialogue with a Master. The first level is the "emptiness" realised when the mind is first "stilled". This "emptiness" is limited to just the interior of the head - but the ridge-pole of habitual ignorance has been permanently broken (this is the enlightenment of the Hinayana) - and is accompanied by a sense of tranquillity and bliss. This situstion (sat atop the hundred-foot pole) must be left behind. Through further training, the "bottom drops out the barrel" - and the perception of the mind expands throughout the ten directions. Emptiness embraces the mind, body, the surrounding environment - and all things within it.
0 Comments
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
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! Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) was adamant that everyone follows the Vinaya Discipline. Of course, although the Buddhist monastics have to follow all the hundreds of rules – the laity have to follow fewer (minus the ‘celibacy’) rules – but those that are followed are still ‘Vinaya’ rules. This is as well as the Bodhisattva Vows - which monastics and laity generally follow (as they do not demand ‘celibacy’). Therefore, a firm ‘moral’ (Sila) base is established that limits bodily movements and assist in the ‘stilling’ of the mind. Buddhist morality advocates psychological and moral ‘non-attachment' to worldly sensation. This in-turn prevents a stimulation of the mind that generates and encourages greed, hatred and delusion. With the three-taints ‘cut-off’ - the practitioner can effectively focus all their efforts upon looking within and realising the empty mind ground. Furthermore, there is a belief within Buddhist culture that by following a morally pure existence an individual guarantees a good rebirth either as a human-being or in one of the divine ‘heavens’ reserved for people who have acquired very good karma but who are not yet enlightenment. Taking this model into account, a devout ‘Buddhist’ guarantees a future rebirth free of the suffering generally associated with the lower realms of demi-gods, spirits and hungry ghosts, etc. Simply following moral rules, however, does not guarantee enlightenment even if it does generate a morally pure behaviour and conduct. Unless a Buddhist practitioner ‘looks’ firmly and carefully into the interior of the mind – and perceives the empty mind ground – no mind-development can take place. This means that although following arbitrary rules of conduct creates pure karma – this process in and of itself does not break the practitioner ‘free’ of the ‘samsaric’ cycles within which humanity in trapped. Just as the moral force of good karma eventually runs-out – an individual is then propelled back into the lower realms of existence to start the process all over again. This means that ‘suffering’ is transformed in a number of ways – but is never transcended and overcome. The Buddha’s path requires that the ridge-pole of karmic ignorance is permanently ‘broken’ once and for all, and for this to happen, morally purifying action must be undertaken so that the Buddha’s meditational methods can be fully applied in an efficient manner. If a person immorally behaves in the world and reinforces greed, hatred and delusion, then no amount of meditation will ‘uproot’ the three-taints and ‘clear’ the surface mind. Indeed, in such a situation, meditation in such a situation might well have the effect of strengthening and magnifying the three-taints and making their presence ever more obvious and domineering! Precepts, therefore, only work if the attention of the mind is firmly ‘turned within’ so that the meditator can clearly perceive the underlying reality of the empty mind ground. This is the exercising of the ‘Mind Precept’ as taught by Master Xu Yun and which is part of the Caodong Ch’an tradition. This is clearly explained throughout the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra whilst never being mentioned by name. Unless the Buddhist method is being firmly applied to the mind – then all the precepts are relegated to ‘karma-purifiers’ and lose their enlightening function as ‘mind-realisers’. The hua tou and the gongan, for instance, are Ch’an methods for effectively ‘looking within’ - and it is through ‘looking within’ that the ‘Mind Precept’ is established. The empty mind ground is the essence of a) the mind and b) all phenomena. This means that all the hundreds of precepts of the Vinaya Discipline have the empty mind ground as their origination – with the understanding that this can only be known by ‘looking within’ and realising it as being so. By ‘looking within’ - the surface mind is ‘stilled’ and greed, hatred and delusion is fully and permanently ‘uprooted’. The emptiness of the mind eventually expands and becomes ‘all-embracing’ as it envelops all phenomena. This is how the ‘Mind Precept’ underlies all precepts and should serve as the foundation of genuine Buddhist self-discipline.
|
Archives
March 2024
Categories
All
|