The “Wall-View” [壁觀] practice is simultaneously a pre-enlightenment (outer) meditative technique – and a description of a post-enlightenment (inner) state of being. To outwardly “gaze at a wall” - is to inwardly realise the all-embracing empty mind ground (and gaze like a wall). What does the 28th Patriarch of the Indian Dhyana tradition have to say on this matter? The following extract is typical Chinese-language encyclopaedia entry regarding the life of the Bodhidharma:
‘傳統上認為，達摩自海路來到中國後，聞說梁武帝信奉佛法，於是至金陵（今江蘇南京）與其談法。梁武帝是篤信佛教的帝王，他即位以後建寺、抄經、度僧、造像甚多，是以詢問達摩：「我做了這些事有多少功德？」達摩卻說：「無功德」。武帝又問：「何以無功德？」達摩說：「此是有為之事，不是實在的功德。」武帝不能理解。因雙方理念不合，達摩即渡江入魏（「一葦渡江」之傳說來源），止於嵩山少林寺，於寺中面壁九年，稱「壁觀婆羅門」。[民間則相信達摩在石洞留下至高無上武學《易筋經》和《洗髓經》。’
India to South China by sea (there are competing stories that he travelled by land into North China via Tibet). As he heard that Emperor Wu [武] of the Southern Liang Dynasty believed in the Dharma and was a devout Buddhist - Bodhidharma went to Jinling (now Nanjing, in Jiangsu province) to discuss this matter with him. After he ascended the throne, Emperor Wu built many temples, order endless Buddhist Sutras to be copied and spread, ordained uncountable monastics, and sponsored the making and distributing of many Buddha-statues. Emperor Wu asked Bodhidharma, "How much work of virtue (karmic-merit) have I accumulated by doing these things?" Bodhidharma replied, "No work of virtue” [無功德 – Wu Gong De]. A surprised Emperor Wu asked once again, "Really? Why no work of virtue?" Bodhidharma answered, "These are wilful acts - not genuine acts of virtue (free of egotistical ‘intent’)." Emperor Wu was astonished and confused by this exchange. Due to this difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of the Dharma - Bodhidharma crossed the Yangzi River into the land of the Northern Wei Dynasty (hence the story of Bodhidharma "gliding across the surface of the water whilst standing on a floating reed"). Bodhidharma then made his way to the Shaolin Temple [少林寺 – Shao Lin Si] situated on Song Mountain [嵩山 – Song Shan] – in Henan province. Here, Bodhidharma sat “facing the wall” in a cave for nine years - and was known as the "wall-viewing Brahman" [壁觀婆羅門 – Bi Guan Po Luo Men]. It is believed that whilst sat in this cave – Bodhidharma compiled two important (external and internal) self-cultivation (martial arts) manuals entitled “Change Muscle-Tendon Classic-Sutra” [易筋經 – Yi Jin Jing] and the ”Bone-Marrow Cleanse Classic-Sutra” [洗髓經 – Xi Sui Jing].’
Bodhidharma is associated with a number of unique texts associated within his own “Dhyana” (Ch’an - 禪) tradition. Although certain historical commentators have stated that Ch’an was unknown in India – in fact Ch’an’s insistence upon the achievement of a sudden flash of insight (yugapad) is similar to that position held by the “Sthaviravada School” – one of the original eighteen schools that developed following the death of the Buddha (see AK Warder, Indian Buddhism, Motilal, Page 454). This is the “Believers in the Teachings of the Elders” School linked to the eventual development of the well-known Theravada. The Pali Suttas possess far more doctrinal latitude than the Theravada School likes to admit or acknowledge. The highly conservative approach of the Theravada focusses on a certain strand of doctrine within the Pali Suttas and ignores or plays-down other equally important teachings. For instance, the Buddha clearly states that lay-men and women can achieve enlightenment and that there is no difference in quality between an enlightened lay-person and an enlightened monastic (Ch’an takes this ideal further – stating children, animals and even inanimate objects can all be enlightened on the grounds that all things are reflected in the great mirror samadhi and arise and pass-away within the empty mind ground). Furthermore, the Pali Suttas clearly state that an “instantaneous” enlightenment is available for all beings by simply being in the “physical presence” of the Buddha (darshan) – without having studied the Dharma, the Vinaya, or the Abhidhamma.
Within the Ch’an School, therefore, an individual may (or may not) study the gradual teachings – and may (or may not) realise instantaneous enlightenment. Studying the scriptures does not necessarily culminate in the realisation of enlightenment – whereas realising instantaneous enlightenment means that an individual (such as Hui Neng) may be illiterate and not know the teachings – but if a scripture is read to them – then the full and complete meaning (prajna) will instantly manifest in their mind - which can be verbally expressed. Remember, the Buddha was also illiterate, as when he lived there was no direct connection between being literate and possessing wisdom within general society. Spiritual teachings were passed on via the agency of memory and the vehicle of word of mouth (only later being written-down). Reading and writing was known in ancient India – but it was a practice reserved for use only amongst governments which possessed specially educated ministers who would “write-down” the laws passed (or repealed) by the king or leader – thus maintaiing a coherent record that could be objectively referenced when needed.
Altough the modern Chinese Ch’an School prides itself on the very high literacy rate of its practitioners – this tradition also maintains the original reality which saw the Buddha, his disciples, and many of his Chinese comverts being “illiterate”. This means that although the Ch’an practitioner may study words and letters – the enlightenment that such teachings represent – must be “beyond” words and letters. It is as if literate Ch’an practitioners must remember what it is like to be illiterate. The empty mind ground exists BEFORE any words are conceived in the mind, or expressed through the mouth. Words may or may not be used – but the empty mind ground is pure, clean, and all-embracing (like a pristine wall that expands in all directions). It is also the case that the Indian Bodhidharma could not speak the Chinese-language – and the Chinese students could not speak the Indian-language. It may be that as this was the case, seated meditation and unexpected actions were used to convey - or reveal - the empty mind ground. Only later did words start to be used in an oblique manner – building the entire edifice of Ch’an literature in China (although the literary structure of this work adopts a distinct Confucian structure – such as that found in the “Analects” or the “論語 – Lun Yu”). The text ascribed to Bodhidharma that introduces the practice of “Wall-Viewing” is known by a number of titles:
Great Master Bodhidharma – Brief Discussion on the Four Practices of Entering the Mahayana Path – (菩提達磨大師略辨大乘入道四行觀論 - Pútí dámó dàshī lüè biàn dàchéng rùdào sì háng guān lùn)
Mahayana Path Entry - Four-Contemplative Practices – (大乘入道四行觀論 - Dàchéng rùdào sì háng guān lùn)
Bodhidharma’s Two Methods of Entering the Four Stages of Contemplation – (達摩二種入四行觀論 - Dámó èr zhǒng rù sì háng guān lùn)
Two Entrances - Four Practices Treatise – (二入四行論 - Èr rù sì háng lùn)
Two Entrances - Four Practices Sutra – (二入四行經 - Èr rù sì háng jīng)
Four Contemplations Treatise – (四行論 - Sì háng lùn)
Four Contemplations Sutra – (四行經 - Sì háng jīng)
Two Methods Entry Treatise – (二種入論 - Èr zhǒng rù lùn)
Two Entrances Treatise – (二入論 - Èr rù lùn)
Mind Entry – Body Entry – (理入行入 – Li Ru Xing Ru)
Although every word spoken by the Buddha is considered a “Sutra” (經 – Jing) – usually only Vimalakirti and Hui Neng are the two other Buddhist practitioners whose teachings are also considered “sutras” or “enlightened” sayings. However, as can be seen from the above list, sometimes Bodhidharma’s teachings are referred to as a “Treatise” (論 – Lun) – whilst at other times they are referred to as a “Sutra” (經 – Jing). This suggests some confusion on the matter, but the changing of designation may be symbolic of the increase in popularity of the Ch’an School throughout the history of China. Whatever the case, it would seem that Bodhidharma can be added to the very short list of enlightened beings whose teachings are considered “Sutras”. JC Cleary explained Bodhidharma’s method in his (1986) “Zen Dawn” through the following translation:
‘This is the Great Vehicle Teaching for pacifying the mind – let there be no error. Those who pacify mind like this do wall-gazing. Those who accord with beings like this prevent slander and dislike. Those who have skill in means like this dispense with what does not apply.’ (Page 35)
‘Bodhidharma taught: There are many roads for entering the Path, but in essence they do not go beyond two kinds; one is entering through inner truth, and the other is entering through practice.
Entering through inner truth means:
1) All living beings (ordinary or sage) share the (underlying) reality-nature which is obscured by a false-covering of alien dust. If you abandon the false and return to the real, concentrate your attention and gaze like a wall, then there is no self and others, and ordinary and sage are equal. Firmly abiding and unmoving, you no longer fall into the verbal teachings. This is tacit accord with the real inner truth: without discrimination, it is still and nameless. This is called “entering through inner truth.”
2) Entering through practice refers to the Four Practices (which envelop all practices):
a) Repaying wrongs – or making amends for countless eons of deluded behaviour as a means of purifying this present life.
b) Going along with the casual nexus – or adjusting to external circumstances (good, bad or neutral) as they manifest. No attachment to good experiences – no rejection of bad experiences, and no slumbering in neutral experiences. There is no permanent self – merely the endless cycle of (contrived) cause and effect.
c) Do not seek anything – or do not allow greed, hatred, and delusion to define your life. Nothing the world desires is real or true and must be laid-down and abandoned. Find the empty essence within all suffering and abide there.
d) Always accord within the Dharma – or abide within the reality of the empty mind ground. Uproot greed, hatred, and delusion, cultivate all good deeds (Sila), and help all beings without end or limit.’ (Pages 33-36)
It is believed that Bodhidharma extracted these teachings from the Lankavatara Sutra (indeed, JC Cleary appears to be quoting from a text discovered in Dun Huang entitled “The Record of the Teachers and Students of the Lanka”), although he is also linked to the Vimalakirti and Prajnaparamita Sutras. (I believe that DT Suzuki’s interpretation of the Lankavatara Sutra as being a later and wholly “introverted” and “idealistic” teaching - is incorrect – as it appear to contain Early Buddhist ideology that recognises that the external world exists – even if its structures are forever changing and suffering-inducing). Vimalakirti, of course, represents the fact that lay-people can realise perfect enlightenment – here and now – whilst living within the world of red dust. The emptiness of the Prajna Sutras underlies and unites this entire vision of human existence and spiritual transcendence. Jeffrey l Broughton, in his book entitled “The Bodhidharma Anthoology – The Earliest Records of Zen” (1999) states in the Introduction:
‘For decades discussion of the Long Scroll or Bodhidharma Anthology, both Japanese and Western, has concentrated on the second section, the Two Entrances, and has come to the consensus that only this text can be attributed to Bodhidharma. Eminent monks of medieval China and modern scholars from around the world have produced many exegeses of the two entrances and the baffling term “wall-examining” (pi-kuan) mentioned in the Biography of Two Entrances; in the traditional story Bodhidharma is usually said to have practiced wall-examining for nine years. Though much exegetical ingenuity has obscured the importance of the Records. In fact, the Records have been so eclipsed that they pass unnoticed in most treatments of early Zen.’ (Page 7) And again:
‘The elusive term of wall-examining has been the subject of countless exegeses, from the most imaginative and metaphysical to the suggestion that it refers to the simple physical act of facing a wall in cross-legged sitting posture. Tibetan Ch’an, a new and exciting subfield of early Ch’an studies, offers us one more. Various Ch’an texts were translated into Tibetan, one of the most important being the Bodhidharma Anthology, which in Tibetan is usually referred to as the Great Chinese Injunctions (Rgya lung chen po). The recently discovered ninth-century Tibetan treatise Dhyana of the Enlightened Eye (Bsam gtan mig sgron) contains translations of some of the Two Entrances, some material from Record I, and the whole of Record III. Early on the Dhyana of the Enlightened Eye gives summaries of four teachings known in early Tibet: the gradualist gate; the all-at once gate (Chinese Ch’an); Mahayoga, and Atiyoga (Rdzogs-chen)
The summary of Ch’an ends with a series of quotations from Ch’an masters, the first of whom is Bodhidharmatara, the version of the name that is encountered in Tibetan sources: “From the sayings of the Great Master Bodhidharmatara, ‘If one reverts to the real, rejects discrimination, and abides in brightness, then there is neither self nor other. The common man and sage are equal. If without shifting you abide in firmness, after that you will not follow after the written teachings. This is the quiet of the principle of the real. It is non-discriminative, quiescent, and inactive. It is entrance principle.’” A Tibetan Tun-huang manuscript gives a virtually identical rendering. This understanding of wall-examining must have been widespread in early Tibet.
The Tibetah closely follows T’an-lin’s Chinese with one exception, the line “in a coagulated state abides in wall-examining” (ning chu pi-kuan), for which the Tibetan reads: “rejects discrimination and abides in brightness” (rtogs pa spangs te / lham mer gnas na). This is a curious and consistent divergence.” (Page 67)
The term “Wall-View”, Wall-Gaze”, or “Wall-examining” are all English language attempts at translating (and transliterating) the Chinese-language term “壁觀” (bi guan). I must say that when I “think” in the Chinese-language – this term appears succinct and straightforward. It is only when this terms transmigrates into a different (and unfamiliar) language culture that uncertainty of meaning creeps in. Bi Guan is to “end” all discursive thought in the surface and deep mind. Bi Guan is to realise the all-embracing empty mind within which all things manifest and pass-away. Bi Guan is like broad and high wall immediately present in-front of the human vision. The wall is too high to climb – and broad to go around. Human vision cannot see above, beyond, or around it. Bi Guan is the end of all deluded vision. Assessing the two-ideograms we have:
壁 (bi4) = Lower particle is “土” (tu3) which means “stamped earth”. The upper particle is “辟” (bi4) which means “law”, “control” and “develop” – a physical structure (such as a “wall”) which defines, controls and orders society.
觀 (guan1) = Left-hand particle is “雚” (Guan4) which means “stork”, “heron”, or “small cup”. The right-hand particle is “見” (jian4) which means “to see”, “to consider”, and “to recognise”.
When combined as “壁觀” (bi guan) - there is the meaning of a developed vision which is broad, expansive, and all-inclusive - like that of a bird’s-eye view when flying high in the sky. This is a special type of all-encompassing vision that excludes nothing, includes everything, and like the structure of a physical wall, generates order and security throughout society. One looks at the wall – and one looks out onto the world – as if one were the wall. These concepts are not necessarily contradictory when viewed from the perspective of a Chinese philosophical use of language, ideas, and symbols. Therefore, “Wall-View” represents the permanent “turning-about” at the deepest levels of human consciousness experienced during successful Ch’an training – a process explained within the Lankavatara Sutra – but which implicit within all legitimate Buddhist texts.
Chinese Languae Text:
https://baike.baidu.com/item/二入四行/3987794
Further Reading (English Language):
Broughton, Jeffrey L, The Bodhidharma Anthoology – The Earliest Records of Zen, University of California Press, (1999)
Cleary, JC, Zen Dawn – Early Zen Texts from Tun Huang, Shambhala, (1986)
Warder, AK, Indian Buddhism, Motilal, (2000)
‘傳統上認為，達摩自海路來到中國後，聞說梁武帝信奉佛法，於是至金陵（今江蘇南京）與其談法。梁武帝是篤信佛教的帝王，他即位以後建寺、抄經、度僧、造像甚多，是以詢問達摩：「我做了這些事有多少功德？」達摩卻說：「無功德」。武帝又問：「何以無功德？」達摩說：「此是有為之事，不是實在的功德。」武帝不能理解。因雙方理念不合，達摩即渡江入魏（「一葦渡江」之傳說來源），止於嵩山少林寺，於寺中面壁九年，稱「壁觀婆羅門」。[民間則相信達摩在石洞留下至高無上武學《易筋經》和《洗髓經》。’
India to South China by sea (there are competing stories that he travelled by land into North China via Tibet). As he heard that Emperor Wu [武] of the Southern Liang Dynasty believed in the Dharma and was a devout Buddhist - Bodhidharma went to Jinling (now Nanjing, in Jiangsu province) to discuss this matter with him. After he ascended the throne, Emperor Wu built many temples, order endless Buddhist Sutras to be copied and spread, ordained uncountable monastics, and sponsored the making and distributing of many Buddha-statues. Emperor Wu asked Bodhidharma, "How much work of virtue (karmic-merit) have I accumulated by doing these things?" Bodhidharma replied, "No work of virtue” [無功德 – Wu Gong De]. A surprised Emperor Wu asked once again, "Really? Why no work of virtue?" Bodhidharma answered, "These are wilful acts - not genuine acts of virtue (free of egotistical ‘intent’)." Emperor Wu was astonished and confused by this exchange. Due to this difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of the Dharma - Bodhidharma crossed the Yangzi River into the land of the Northern Wei Dynasty (hence the story of Bodhidharma "gliding across the surface of the water whilst standing on a floating reed"). Bodhidharma then made his way to the Shaolin Temple [少林寺 – Shao Lin Si] situated on Song Mountain [嵩山 – Song Shan] – in Henan province. Here, Bodhidharma sat “facing the wall” in a cave for nine years - and was known as the "wall-viewing Brahman" [壁觀婆羅門 – Bi Guan Po Luo Men]. It is believed that whilst sat in this cave – Bodhidharma compiled two important (external and internal) self-cultivation (martial arts) manuals entitled “Change Muscle-Tendon Classic-Sutra” [易筋經 – Yi Jin Jing] and the ”Bone-Marrow Cleanse Classic-Sutra” [洗髓經 – Xi Sui Jing].’
Bodhidharma is associated with a number of unique texts associated within his own “Dhyana” (Ch’an - 禪) tradition. Although certain historical commentators have stated that Ch’an was unknown in India – in fact Ch’an’s insistence upon the achievement of a sudden flash of insight (yugapad) is similar to that position held by the “Sthaviravada School” – one of the original eighteen schools that developed following the death of the Buddha (see AK Warder, Indian Buddhism, Motilal, Page 454). This is the “Believers in the Teachings of the Elders” School linked to the eventual development of the well-known Theravada. The Pali Suttas possess far more doctrinal latitude than the Theravada School likes to admit or acknowledge. The highly conservative approach of the Theravada focusses on a certain strand of doctrine within the Pali Suttas and ignores or plays-down other equally important teachings. For instance, the Buddha clearly states that lay-men and women can achieve enlightenment and that there is no difference in quality between an enlightened lay-person and an enlightened monastic (Ch’an takes this ideal further – stating children, animals and even inanimate objects can all be enlightened on the grounds that all things are reflected in the great mirror samadhi and arise and pass-away within the empty mind ground). Furthermore, the Pali Suttas clearly state that an “instantaneous” enlightenment is available for all beings by simply being in the “physical presence” of the Buddha (darshan) – without having studied the Dharma, the Vinaya, or the Abhidhamma.
Within the Ch’an School, therefore, an individual may (or may not) study the gradual teachings – and may (or may not) realise instantaneous enlightenment. Studying the scriptures does not necessarily culminate in the realisation of enlightenment – whereas realising instantaneous enlightenment means that an individual (such as Hui Neng) may be illiterate and not know the teachings – but if a scripture is read to them – then the full and complete meaning (prajna) will instantly manifest in their mind - which can be verbally expressed. Remember, the Buddha was also illiterate, as when he lived there was no direct connection between being literate and possessing wisdom within general society. Spiritual teachings were passed on via the agency of memory and the vehicle of word of mouth (only later being written-down). Reading and writing was known in ancient India – but it was a practice reserved for use only amongst governments which possessed specially educated ministers who would “write-down” the laws passed (or repealed) by the king or leader – thus maintaiing a coherent record that could be objectively referenced when needed.
Altough the modern Chinese Ch’an School prides itself on the very high literacy rate of its practitioners – this tradition also maintains the original reality which saw the Buddha, his disciples, and many of his Chinese comverts being “illiterate”. This means that although the Ch’an practitioner may study words and letters – the enlightenment that such teachings represent – must be “beyond” words and letters. It is as if literate Ch’an practitioners must remember what it is like to be illiterate. The empty mind ground exists BEFORE any words are conceived in the mind, or expressed through the mouth. Words may or may not be used – but the empty mind ground is pure, clean, and all-embracing (like a pristine wall that expands in all directions). It is also the case that the Indian Bodhidharma could not speak the Chinese-language – and the Chinese students could not speak the Indian-language. It may be that as this was the case, seated meditation and unexpected actions were used to convey - or reveal - the empty mind ground. Only later did words start to be used in an oblique manner – building the entire edifice of Ch’an literature in China (although the literary structure of this work adopts a distinct Confucian structure – such as that found in the “Analects” or the “論語 – Lun Yu”). The text ascribed to Bodhidharma that introduces the practice of “Wall-Viewing” is known by a number of titles:
Great Master Bodhidharma – Brief Discussion on the Four Practices of Entering the Mahayana Path – (菩提達磨大師略辨大乘入道四行觀論 - Pútí dámó dàshī lüè biàn dàchéng rùdào sì háng guān lùn)
Mahayana Path Entry - Four-Contemplative Practices – (大乘入道四行觀論 - Dàchéng rùdào sì háng guān lùn)
Bodhidharma’s Two Methods of Entering the Four Stages of Contemplation – (達摩二種入四行觀論 - Dámó èr zhǒng rù sì háng guān lùn)
Two Entrances - Four Practices Treatise – (二入四行論 - Èr rù sì háng lùn)
Two Entrances - Four Practices Sutra – (二入四行經 - Èr rù sì háng jīng)
Four Contemplations Treatise – (四行論 - Sì háng lùn)
Four Contemplations Sutra – (四行經 - Sì háng jīng)
Two Methods Entry Treatise – (二種入論 - Èr zhǒng rù lùn)
Two Entrances Treatise – (二入論 - Èr rù lùn)
Mind Entry – Body Entry – (理入行入 – Li Ru Xing Ru)
Although every word spoken by the Buddha is considered a “Sutra” (經 – Jing) – usually only Vimalakirti and Hui Neng are the two other Buddhist practitioners whose teachings are also considered “sutras” or “enlightened” sayings. However, as can be seen from the above list, sometimes Bodhidharma’s teachings are referred to as a “Treatise” (論 – Lun) – whilst at other times they are referred to as a “Sutra” (經 – Jing). This suggests some confusion on the matter, but the changing of designation may be symbolic of the increase in popularity of the Ch’an School throughout the history of China. Whatever the case, it would seem that Bodhidharma can be added to the very short list of enlightened beings whose teachings are considered “Sutras”. JC Cleary explained Bodhidharma’s method in his (1986) “Zen Dawn” through the following translation:
‘This is the Great Vehicle Teaching for pacifying the mind – let there be no error. Those who pacify mind like this do wall-gazing. Those who accord with beings like this prevent slander and dislike. Those who have skill in means like this dispense with what does not apply.’ (Page 35)
‘Bodhidharma taught: There are many roads for entering the Path, but in essence they do not go beyond two kinds; one is entering through inner truth, and the other is entering through practice.
Entering through inner truth means:
1) All living beings (ordinary or sage) share the (underlying) reality-nature which is obscured by a false-covering of alien dust. If you abandon the false and return to the real, concentrate your attention and gaze like a wall, then there is no self and others, and ordinary and sage are equal. Firmly abiding and unmoving, you no longer fall into the verbal teachings. This is tacit accord with the real inner truth: without discrimination, it is still and nameless. This is called “entering through inner truth.”
2) Entering through practice refers to the Four Practices (which envelop all practices):
a) Repaying wrongs – or making amends for countless eons of deluded behaviour as a means of purifying this present life.
b) Going along with the casual nexus – or adjusting to external circumstances (good, bad or neutral) as they manifest. No attachment to good experiences – no rejection of bad experiences, and no slumbering in neutral experiences. There is no permanent self – merely the endless cycle of (contrived) cause and effect.
c) Do not seek anything – or do not allow greed, hatred, and delusion to define your life. Nothing the world desires is real or true and must be laid-down and abandoned. Find the empty essence within all suffering and abide there.
d) Always accord within the Dharma – or abide within the reality of the empty mind ground. Uproot greed, hatred, and delusion, cultivate all good deeds (Sila), and help all beings without end or limit.’ (Pages 33-36)
It is believed that Bodhidharma extracted these teachings from the Lankavatara Sutra (indeed, JC Cleary appears to be quoting from a text discovered in Dun Huang entitled “The Record of the Teachers and Students of the Lanka”), although he is also linked to the Vimalakirti and Prajnaparamita Sutras. (I believe that DT Suzuki’s interpretation of the Lankavatara Sutra as being a later and wholly “introverted” and “idealistic” teaching - is incorrect – as it appear to contain Early Buddhist ideology that recognises that the external world exists – even if its structures are forever changing and suffering-inducing). Vimalakirti, of course, represents the fact that lay-people can realise perfect enlightenment – here and now – whilst living within the world of red dust. The emptiness of the Prajna Sutras underlies and unites this entire vision of human existence and spiritual transcendence. Jeffrey l Broughton, in his book entitled “The Bodhidharma Anthoology – The Earliest Records of Zen” (1999) states in the Introduction:
‘For decades discussion of the Long Scroll or Bodhidharma Anthology, both Japanese and Western, has concentrated on the second section, the Two Entrances, and has come to the consensus that only this text can be attributed to Bodhidharma. Eminent monks of medieval China and modern scholars from around the world have produced many exegeses of the two entrances and the baffling term “wall-examining” (pi-kuan) mentioned in the Biography of Two Entrances; in the traditional story Bodhidharma is usually said to have practiced wall-examining for nine years. Though much exegetical ingenuity has obscured the importance of the Records. In fact, the Records have been so eclipsed that they pass unnoticed in most treatments of early Zen.’ (Page 7) And again:
‘The elusive term of wall-examining has been the subject of countless exegeses, from the most imaginative and metaphysical to the suggestion that it refers to the simple physical act of facing a wall in cross-legged sitting posture. Tibetan Ch’an, a new and exciting subfield of early Ch’an studies, offers us one more. Various Ch’an texts were translated into Tibetan, one of the most important being the Bodhidharma Anthology, which in Tibetan is usually referred to as the Great Chinese Injunctions (Rgya lung chen po). The recently discovered ninth-century Tibetan treatise Dhyana of the Enlightened Eye (Bsam gtan mig sgron) contains translations of some of the Two Entrances, some material from Record I, and the whole of Record III. Early on the Dhyana of the Enlightened Eye gives summaries of four teachings known in early Tibet: the gradualist gate; the all-at once gate (Chinese Ch’an); Mahayoga, and Atiyoga (Rdzogs-chen)
The summary of Ch’an ends with a series of quotations from Ch’an masters, the first of whom is Bodhidharmatara, the version of the name that is encountered in Tibetan sources: “From the sayings of the Great Master Bodhidharmatara, ‘If one reverts to the real, rejects discrimination, and abides in brightness, then there is neither self nor other. The common man and sage are equal. If without shifting you abide in firmness, after that you will not follow after the written teachings. This is the quiet of the principle of the real. It is non-discriminative, quiescent, and inactive. It is entrance principle.’” A Tibetan Tun-huang manuscript gives a virtually identical rendering. This understanding of wall-examining must have been widespread in early Tibet.
The Tibetah closely follows T’an-lin’s Chinese with one exception, the line “in a coagulated state abides in wall-examining” (ning chu pi-kuan), for which the Tibetan reads: “rejects discrimination and abides in brightness” (rtogs pa spangs te / lham mer gnas na). This is a curious and consistent divergence.” (Page 67)
The term “Wall-View”, Wall-Gaze”, or “Wall-examining” are all English language attempts at translating (and transliterating) the Chinese-language term “壁觀” (bi guan). I must say that when I “think” in the Chinese-language – this term appears succinct and straightforward. It is only when this terms transmigrates into a different (and unfamiliar) language culture that uncertainty of meaning creeps in. Bi Guan is to “end” all discursive thought in the surface and deep mind. Bi Guan is to realise the all-embracing empty mind within which all things manifest and pass-away. Bi Guan is like broad and high wall immediately present in-front of the human vision. The wall is too high to climb – and broad to go around. Human vision cannot see above, beyond, or around it. Bi Guan is the end of all deluded vision. Assessing the two-ideograms we have:
壁 (bi4) = Lower particle is “土” (tu3) which means “stamped earth”. The upper particle is “辟” (bi4) which means “law”, “control” and “develop” – a physical structure (such as a “wall”) which defines, controls and orders society.
觀 (guan1) = Left-hand particle is “雚” (Guan4) which means “stork”, “heron”, or “small cup”. The right-hand particle is “見” (jian4) which means “to see”, “to consider”, and “to recognise”.
When combined as “壁觀” (bi guan) - there is the meaning of a developed vision which is broad, expansive, and all-inclusive - like that of a bird’s-eye view when flying high in the sky. This is a special type of all-encompassing vision that excludes nothing, includes everything, and like the structure of a physical wall, generates order and security throughout society. One looks at the wall – and one looks out onto the world – as if one were the wall. These concepts are not necessarily contradictory when viewed from the perspective of a Chinese philosophical use of language, ideas, and symbols. Therefore, “Wall-View” represents the permanent “turning-about” at the deepest levels of human consciousness experienced during successful Ch’an training – a process explained within the Lankavatara Sutra – but which implicit within all legitimate Buddhist texts.
Chinese Languae Text:
https://baike.baidu.com/item/二入四行/3987794
Further Reading (English Language):
Broughton, Jeffrey L, The Bodhidharma Anthoology – The Earliest Records of Zen, University of California Press, (1999)
Cleary, JC, Zen Dawn – Early Zen Texts from Tun Huang, Shambhala, (1986)
Warder, AK, Indian Buddhism, Motilal, (2000)
RSS Feed