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! 

This is quoted from the (1973) book entitled 'Zen Art For Meditation' by Stewart W Holmes and Chimyo Horjoka (Pages 109-111). This is a classic piece of US Cold War agitation and propaganda aimed at removing the history of 'China' from the record books. Interestingly, the US (Eurocentric) racism and Japanese (Ultra-Nationalist) racism overlap to an incredible degree - both flawlessly dovetailing to co-operate in removing the machinations of genuine Chinese Ch'an history from being observed by the average Western mind. The reference for the above piece is from the work of Alan Watts and DT Suzuki - both 'frauds' and the latter a untried Japanese War Criminal. The 'British' Alan Watts travelled around the US giving highly popular 'anti-intellectual' lectures that appealed to the American sense of inflated self-interest whilst terming this Eurocentric and racist interpretation of Asian spiritual culture as 'Zen'. DT Suzuki came from a long line of Japanese fascists who served the Japanese government and its requirement to indoctrinate and brain-wash the Japanese population into mindlessly following orders as part of the Imperial Japanese Military! DT Suzuki influenced Alan Watts (and his fellow Britton Christmas Humphreys) by falsely claiming that true 'Zen' has nothing to do with the Buddhist morality contained within the Vinaya Discipline (which forbids 'killing' in word, deed or thought)! Japanese militarism, on the contrary, demanded that this moral barrier was firmly removed from the highly moral Buddhism - and people like DT Suzuki was the man to do it! He taught entire generations of Japanese youth to inherently hate 'Westerners' and the 'Chinese' as both being examples of inferior races as part of their military training! Indeed, the Chinese Ch'an Buddhist - Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) - who witnessed the Japanese atrocities in China first-hand, was of the opinion that their barbarism and inhumanity stemmed from a corrupt generation of Japanese Buddhist clerics who refused to acknowledge or follow the Vinaya Discipline! Between 1931-1945, the Japanese Imperial Army, (Airforce and Navy) killed around 60 million men, women and children throughout Asia (with a large proportion of these deaths being within China). Despite China being a staunch ally of the West during WWII, China was 'excluded' from the all 'White' panel of Judges at Nuremberg - with the Japanese atrocities committed in China played-down by Western commentators. As the US-backed Nationalist government was forced to flee to Taiwan in the wake of the success of the Socialist Revolution of 1949, the US adopted a policy of immediately rehabilitating Japanese militarism and racist nationalism - dressing it up in the false garb of 'defending' democracy from the threat of Chinese Communism. The US followed exactly the same policy of rehabilitating entire regiments of Nazi Germans in Europe - switching Hitler for 'liberal democracy'! The US made use of the anti-Socialist aspect of fascist ideology and created a political climate where the Japanese nation did not have to acknowledge its extensive crimes in China, or make any amends for these crimes. The US restructured Japan so that Chinese Buddhism was falsely presented as a) corrupt, and b) having 'died-out' centuries ago! This racist lunacy was further strengthened with the equally laughable claim (still found in US and Japanese academia) that 'Zen' only exists in Japan! The Japanese nation has corrupted 'Zen' for so long that it is in no way the representative of Chinese Ch'an! Such an absurd idea has its roots deep within US and Japanese racism! DT Suzuki taught (in pre-WWII Japan) that the Zen of 'Killing' an enemy soldier was a simple as 'breathing-in and breathing-out'! Master Xu Yun - a representative of the Chinese Ch'an tradition that US and Japanese racism falsely state 'does not exist' - taught (by way of comparison) that a Ch'an practitioner should 'not kill - or cause to kill'! And yet US anti-intellectualism views militaristic Japan as the keeper of the peace and peaceful China as the perpetuators of war! Finally, the author Stephen W Holmes was a 'Officer' in the 'Cambridge Buddhist Association (which had DT Suzuki as its founding President)! Chimyo Horjoka took over as 'President' of the above entity with the death of DT Suzuki in 1966 and by 1973 had held that post 7 years, whose broader academic career was in fine arts in the US. Neither one possessed the insight (or 'courage') to expose the anti-China narrative generated by the US post-1945, and indeed, colluded in this book to perpetuate in by writing China 'out of history!' I suspect that Cambridge University will be as embarrassed by its siding with a Japanese War Criminal and US anti-China racism - just as Oxford University's Buddhist Society will live to regret its mindless support for the equally 'racist' 'Pro-Tibetan Movement' - yet another manifestation of US anti-China racism! In the meantime, Bodhidharma conveyed the Indian School of 'Dhyana' Buddhism to China - where it became known as 'Ch'an.' Bodhidharma never visited Japan and so was not the 'founder of the Zen sect.' The modern Japanese government, in its zeal to wipe-out its historical associations with ancient China, mentions (on one of its governmental websites) the lie that 'Zen' came from India to Japan! Although it is often assumed that Ch'an spread to Japan from China during the 12th and 13th centuries (at the time of the Song Dynasty), there is also some evidence that the renowned Japanese Shingon Master 'Kukai' (空海 - Kong Hai) or 'Empty Ocean' (774-835) - was also taught 'Ch'an' and the 'Tea Ceremony' (茶流 - Cha Dao) whilst studying in China (between 804-806 during the Tang Dynasty - staying in temples in and around Chang'an! An English version of this narrative can be found in the work of William Scott Wilson. Chinese language sources suggest that Kukai also studied Sanskrit and insisted on checking that the Buddhist practices in China and Japan were extant in Indian Buddhist Sutra sources. Kukai, writing in the 9th century, confirmed that the Indian transmission of the Dharma to China was 'pure' and 'intact'! Killing the Dharma is killing the truth and this is exactly what posy-WWII US and Japanese policy has attempted to do. This can be countered by upholding the very Vinaya Discipline the contemporary Japanese people have rejected and the ancient Japanese people upheld! The ignorant Americans, however, have yet to uphold the Vinaya Discipline in any of its guises...

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.   

The Buddha recognised that all physical bodies are born, exist and then die. This logical observation serves as the foundation of the Buddha’s Teaching. It is an inevitable process that every living-being must experience. An individual will be born, will live their life in any number of ways, and will then pass away through natural (old age) or unnatural (illness, injury or accident, etc) causes. According to the Buddha, the state of an individual’s mind is responsible for the ‘willed’ (volitional) actions performed through the body. The frequency of these decisions can be ‘healing’ and ‘compassionate’ or ‘debilitating’ and ‘horrible’ - it all depends upon the past conditioning (karma) of the individual mind (and body).  

By permanently ‘stilling’ (and ‘expanding’) the mind, all karmic production is eradicated. This is a moment of karmic purification of mind and body. The ‘ridge-pole of ignorance is destroyed forever’ as the Buddha states in the Dhammapada. This is the experience of nirvana whilst still inhabiting a human-body – and when death arrives the body will ‘fall away’ - revealing the state of experiencing ‘nirvana’ without inhabiting a body. Through adhering to the Vinaya Discipline – this strict regulation of the mind and body in the environment has a beneficial effect with regards to health. This is because every rule is designed by the Buddha to ‘remove’ a particular negative (karmic) trait that causes ‘suffering’ in the mind and body of the individual and which permeates out into the environment if not ‘checked’ through the deployment of purposeful discipline.  ​

This is how the Buddha strives to reduce suffering in the mind and body of the individual (and in the world). This process is cemented by emptying the mind of greed, hatred and delusion – whilst directly ‘perceiving’ the empty essence of the perceiving (and ‘non-perceiving’) mind. This is how the Buddha strives to eradicate all ‘illnesses’ (and illness generating ‘delusion’) from the mind, body and environment through the application of a strict discipline. This is why Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) was of the opinion that the Vinaya Discipline is a vital (foundational) element of ALL genuine schools of Buddhism – and refused to follow the example of Japan in ‘abolishing’ the Vinaya Discipline as a guide for monks and nuns. If a person wants to live longer and in a healthier manner – then follow the Vinaya Discipline! 

The hermit of Lotus Flower Peak held up his staff and showed it to the assembly saying, “When the ancients got here, why didn’t they consent to stay here?” 

There was no answer from the assembly, so he himself answered for them, “Because they did not gam strength on the road.” 

Again he said, “In the end, how is it?” And again he himself answered in their place, “With my staff across my shoulder, I pay no heed to people – I go straight into the myriad peaks.” 

Blue Cliff Record – Case 25 

A Ch’an Week Retreat is an intensive period of focused seated meditation, that extends over a clearly defined time-period. This is a tradition within the Chinese Ch’an School that involves the monastic and lay community practicing together without any distinction. All sit together, and all follow the full Vinaya Discipline for the duration of the Retreat. If a Ch’an practitioner sits properly, (as observed by the Japanese Zen Master – Dogen), then the ‘Mind Precept’ is established. The Mind Precept is a ‘still’ mind (relative enlightenment) that has uprooted all vestiges of greed, hatred and delusion, and which has expanded to include the entire environment (full enlightenment). In this pristine state, all material things arise and pass-away within an all-embracing (and reflective) void. It is an emptiness that contains all things, and which is devoid of any and all delusive thinking premised upon habitual dualism. This bright and still mind manifests boundless wisdom (prajna), compassion (karuna) and loving-kindness (maitri), and is the basis of every rule - not only within the Vinaya Discipline - but also the Bodhisattva Vows. By adopting a clear state of mind and a disciplined mode of bodily behaviour, the Ch’an practitioner generates the conditions to a) realise enlightenment, and b) deepen an already experienced enlightening experience. Those who enter a Ch’an Week Retreat who are already fully enlightened, offer a great Bodhisattva service to humanity (and the universe), as their presence ‘purifies’ the fabric of existence, and generates ‘strength’ for all those still struggling on the Path! Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) always taught that there is no point forcibly adhering to the Vinaya Discipline if the mind of the practitioner is full of confusion (klesa) - and lacks a clarity of insight into the state of ‘stillness’. From a karmic perspective, if a mind is infected with dualistic desire, then negative karma will carry-on being produced (premised upon ‘volitional’ thought), regardless of the behaviour of the body. In such a situation, bodily action may well conform to the outer spirit of the Vinaya Discipline, but as the mind is impure, delusion carries-on being produced as before. This is an ‘inward’ betrayal of the spirit of the Vinaya Discipline. Monks, nuns or lay-people (who live like this), will be exposed sooner or later. Eventually, the sheer weight of this contradiction will eventually lead to an outer abhorrent behaviour that matches the corrupt state of the inner mind. This is why the mind must be ‘cleaned’ through the use of the hua-tou and the gong-an methods. Sitting in disciplined meditation for an extended period of time is an excellent method to begin this training, and to deepen this training once experience has been gained and progress made. Although the mind is impermanent, as declared by the Buddha, it is important that all greed, hatred and delusion is uprooted from its functioning, and that the empty mind ground is penetrated and clearly understood.  ​

The Buddha explains clearly, in every expression of his teaching, that consciousness and physical matter are not two different things, even though they may be viewed as two distinct expressions of the same underlying reality. This understanding avoids the traps of ‘idealism’ and gross ‘materialism’, which are both declared errors by the Buddha. It is not that the mind does not exist, or that the physical world does not exist – both definitely do within an interpretive context – but that attachment to one view or the other is unhelpful when it comes to meditational development and the cultivation of wisdom. Furthermore, within the Four Noble Truths, it is clear that ‘consciousness’ in the chain of becoming has ‘physical matter’ as its basis (I.e. matter, sensation, perception, thought formation and conscious awareness). If this was not the case, this chain would read ‘conscious awareness’, ‘thought formation’, ‘perception’, ‘sensation’ and ‘matter’ - but it does not. This is the error made by DR DT Suzuki in his commentary upon the Lankavatara Sutra, which is perpetuated by those who think the Yogacara School is ‘idealist’ - when in fact the founders of this school begin their analysis by firmly stating that they agree with the Buddha when he says that the human mind is ‘impermanent’. Besides, genuine Buddhist training is as much in the mind as it is in the body, with ‘sila’ (morality) being the control of thought and physical behaviour. The ‘stilling’ of the mind is as important as the ‘stilling’ of the body, although the former supersedes the latter with regard to transformation and perception thereof. However, for a human mind to be functional, it must be existent within a living body.  As to what might happen ‘before birth’ and ‘after death’, the Buddha remains ‘silent’, with many people utilising the metaphysics of religion to fill in this void... 

The body is disciplined so that the mind may be ‘focused’. The Buddha teaches a type of Yoga, or at least a path that is recognisably ‘Yogic’ in origination. One of the first lines of the Patanjali Sutra reads ‘Yoga is the restriction of the fluctuations of consciousness.’ (Feuerstein 1989). Yoga is also an umbrella term used to describe a profound mind and body training that generates a permanent psycho-physical transformation. This is not a ‘subjective’ delusion, as the Buddha warns against this misidentification of inner awareness, and neither is it a hedonistic attachment to external pleasures (or pain) depending upon the conditionality of an individual. The Buddha advocates a non-identification with thought (and feeling), and a detachment from all physical sensation. Although there is a stage whereby the mind becomes free of surface thought (and a ‘stillness’ is experienced), nevertheless, eventually the process of thought is re-born in the mind but in an entirely ‘new’ manner which no longer ‘obscures’, ‘confuses’ or induces any form of ‘suffering’, etc. (The post-enlightenment situation is controversial and open to debate.) 
​
Being a ‘Bodhisattva’ requires an individual to become truly ‘universal’ in perception, understanding and empathy. The conundrum of personal suffering must be solved before the suffering of the entire world can be taken on without any form of hindrance. To be a genuine Bodhisattva, is to be able to take responsibility for every single mode of suffering that exists in this world and the worlds beyond. Universal suffering is not limited to only that which humans feel – but necessarily includes ALL suffering everywhere. Furthermore, the committed Bodhisattva willingly takes on the suffering of past, the present and the future. The ‘intention’ is to be with those who are experiencing suffering, and to spiritually offer support and sustenance to help them through that which most would find difficult to experience or even face. How this is to be achieved is entirely dependent upon circumstance as there is no single method that meets all requirements. This is not an easy ability to achieve or function to perform. This is why Buddhist monastics in China take the ‘Bodhisattva Vows’ as well as the ‘Vinaya Discipline’ as part of their spiritual responsibilities.  

What is the point of Ch’an (or Buddhist) enlightenment in the modern age?  Many, if not all of the world’s great scientific breakthroughs have been made by human minds that have not undergone the Buddhist training, and which have not uprooted greed, hatred or delusion, transcended duality or perceived the empty mind ground. My personal opinion is that Buddhist developmental methodology is not a religion, despite the fact that many manifestations of Buddhism have assumed the garb of religiosity. Buddhism is not anti-science as the theology of other religions is often presented, and yet the Buddha and his disciples (although many of them ‘learned’), could not read or write. Many are surprised by this, but at no point in any of the 5000 plus Buddhist texts does the Buddha mention the modern notion of literacy, despite the Buddha’s thought processes appearing to be very modern despite manifesting at sometime between 2,500-3000 years ago in ancient India. As the concept of modern science has now mainstreamed in the world, together with literacy being the preferred norm, the Buddha’s path no longer seems that special or important. An effective scientist does not need to meditate or gain enlightenment to be an effective servant of humanity, and profoundly assist in its development and welfare. On the other hand, I have read Professors at Oxford University state that in their opinion, the Buddha was the first ‘modern’ thinker at a time when logical thinking was thin on the ground, with Carl Jung opining that the Buddha appeared, through a sheer act of will, to think ‘outside’ the era within which he existed. This on its own is an extraordinary feat, if it is accepted that he was the world’s first modern thinker in the true sense. In today’s world, being intellectually astute is inherently linked to simultaneously possessing a high degree of literacy and coming from an economically rich background, and yet the Buddha had none of these things as a spiritual-seeker. Indeed, today he would be considered one of the homeless community and what he had to say would be deliberately excluded from what is considered the general (and valid) discourse of mainstream existence. It is perhaps ironic that most that refer to themselves as ‘Buddhist’ in the contemporary West are of the privileged economic class that the Buddha rejected. The enlightened Buddha combines poverty, homelessness and unemployment with selflessness, non-attachment and sublime wisdom. What is interesting is that if a person were to live in a peaceful forest or on top of a hill far from the cares of the ordinary world, then the Dharma certainly does prove to be a ‘way out’ of ordinary suffering (by following the Vinaya Discipline). However, within the Ch’an School (and the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra), the Buddha explains the path of the enlightened lay-person. Such a person lives amongst the pleasures and pains of the world and remains non-attached to arising and falling thoughts (and emotions), and is unmoved by words of praise or blame. The empty nature of material reality is always perceived as underlying the continuous play of phenomena. Although a busy street or a quiet mountain top may differ in outward appearances, they both share exactly the same empty mind ground, and other than the practicalities of different manifestations, no real difference can be discerned. Understanding this is the further training required after enlightenment. From my own perspective, training as a young man directed, strengthened and freed the full intellectual and wisdom capacities inherent in my mind, whilst allowing me a completely different way of relating to and controlling my physical body. This led to tremendous academic success and the mastery of our family martial arts system.  

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.