​Genuine Ch’an Buddhism is NOT an invention of Chinese (Confucian) culture – as one or two contemporary Japanese and Western academics assert. Neither is Chinese Ch’an Buddhism only preserved within modern Japan – as same academics claim through the false claim that Buddhism died-out in China. Indeed, the presence (and existence) of Master Xu Yun [1840-1959] tends to expose these incorrect interpretations for the nonsense they are. Furthermore, Master Xu Yun was far from being the only eminent Ch’an practitioner living in modern China. Perhaps the Japanese Establishment fails to appreciate the fact that Master Xu Yun personally witnessed the endless atrocities committed by the Imperial Japanese Military (the infamous “Kwantung Army”) in Southern and Central China between 1931-1945 (Master Xu Yun did not personally witness the same atrocities carried-out in the North-East area of China – but he certainly heard what was going-on in Manchuria). Post-1945 saw Japan quickly rehabilitated as a supposed bulwark against “Socialist” China by the US. And so, It would seem that expedient political considerations have been used to “direct” how academics should “think” and structure their distorted narratives. Throw all this misdirection away – as China is responsible for its own culture. 

​It is clear that Buddhism developed within ancient India and was transmitted into China in all its forms. As the historical Buddha dismissed the idea that an atman (soul) exists in the mind of a practitioner – and ths “atman” must be developed to unite the individual with Brahma (a theistic entity). The Buddha’s methodology rejected any direct link with Indian theistic religion. This allowed the Buddhist philosophy to be transmitted all over Asia into cultures that had no connection with Indian Hinduism – so that it could adapt to the local conditions without force or conflict. This is exactly what happened in China – where an incoming Indian philosophy (Buddhism) was peacefully integrated with Confucian (and later “Daoist”) ideology (the Ch’an dialogues are very similar to how Confucius discussed profound matters with his disciples). Confucianism gave Ch’an (Dhyana) its distinctly “Chinese” flavour. This method of Indian Buddhism grew out of the Rig Veda and the Upanishads – particularly the “Dhyana Yoga” or “Seated Meditation Self-Cultivation” of India’s ancient spiritual tradition. 

​Indian spirituality was so remarkably adaptive that it allowed for theism, atheism, non-theism, consciousness-development, and materialist-realisatiion, etc, with no contradiction whatsoever. Within India, a “materialist” attitude can be as spiritual as a “theistic” attitude - and this is a point that those living in the dualistic West need to study with considerable attention. For the ancient Indians, no perspective was permitted to exist outside of the all-embracing spiritual entity. Therefore, the Sanskrit term “āsana” (आसन) is expressed in the written Chinese language as “体位法” (Ti Wei Fa). Quite logically, the ancient Chinese scholars interpreted the Indian Sanskrit term of “āsana” (आसन) as:

​1) 体 (Ti) = Physical Body

​2) 位 (Wei) = Posture

​3) 法 (Fa) = Law

​A Chinese language encyclopaedia text regarding Yoga practice states (in-part) the following:

“Thousands of years ago, Indian Yogis sat quietly meditating in the forests of the Himalayas, as this was the original Yogic practice. Occasionally, these Indian Yogis, when not engaged within deep meditative absorption, observed wild animals performing their own natural bodily positions linked to feeding, survival, exploration, and sleeping, etc. Some of these Indian Yogis, to relieve the stiffness in their joints from days of seated meditation, copied these beautiful animal postures to pass their time alone. After deep observation, these Indian Yogis realized that nature nurtured (and taught) animals the skills to stay healthy, to be sensitive, and to stay alert, and at the same time gave various animals the innate methods to heal themselves, relax themselves, sleep, or stay alert and awake. These ancient Indian Yogis adapted these animal body postures and conducted experiments upon themselves. They discovered that these postures unlocked great health benefits for the human mind and body. Then, after deep intuition and judgment, they finally created a series of physical exercise systems, which they termed “Asana” - or “Yogic Posture”. Many of these thousands of asana yoga postures are named after animals, such as the Cobra Pose, Peacock Pose, Fish Pose, and Locust Pose, etc.

​need to “sell” their art – they cannot emphasis the “true” or “original” Yogic practice as this would not be popular within a profit-orientated system. Why is this? The original Yogic practice, as described above, involved Yogic ascetics (Sannyasa - “those who dwell alone to get to the root”) who completely rejected society. These Yogic ascetics sat in seated meditation with the intention of focusing the power of the mind - so that a “new” human perception could be developed. This seated meditation (“Dhyana”) was designed to “see through” the material realm that humanity inhabits. Therefore, before the animals posture evolved – the original “asana” involved the Yogi only being seated with cross-legs and a straight-back. This “asana” was held (unmoving) for weeks on end, regardless of day or night, good or bad weather, or a safe or unsafe environment (even after physical death – this seated meditation posture was held). 

​The physical body was “stiiled” through sitting in meditation – so that the activity of the mind could be “stilled” whilst focusing the attention on the process of the “in” breath, the “transition” breath, and “out” breath. This is the original “Dhyana” Yogic practice that the Buddha used to attain his Enlightenment - and it is the method he transmitted as a means for others to realise their Enlightenment. This is the “Dhyana” method that Bodhidharma brought to China – and which became “Ch’an”. This is also the primary preserved in the Patanjali Sutra – whereas later – the Hindu practitioners developed the animal postures described above. The mind is powerful enough to transform the body - providing the body is already disciplined (and no longer permitted to do as it pleases by fulfilling its own natural appetites). Perhaps “sitting still” and “moving” in a constructive manner (as in holding the “animal postures”) represent two-sides of the same developmental coin.

​Chinese Language Text:

​https://baike.baidu.com/item/瑜伽体位法/6833418

​几千年前，瑜伽行者在喜马拉雅山的森林中冥想、静坐时，偶尔观察野生动物，并且分享它们美妙的姿势，以打发他们独居的时间。经过深刻的观察，他们察觉大自然孕育、教导动物保有健康、灵敏、警觉的技巧，同时让各种动物天生具有治疗它们自己、放松自己、睡眠或保持清醒的方法。这些古早时候的瑜伽修行者根据这些动物的姿势并且亲身做实验，发现对身体有很大的益处，然后经过深刻的直观和判断，终于创造了一系列身体锻炼的系统，我们称之为Asana，亦即瑜伽体位法。这些几千种的asana瑜伽姿势，有许多是依照动物的名称来令名，例如：眼镜蛇式、孔雀式、鱼式、蝗虫式等等瑜伽。

English Language Reference:

Edward F Bryant: The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, North East Press, (2009)

​Richard Hunn stated that the Five Ranks of the Caodong School are very sophisticated and quite often difficult to understand. In essence the Caodong Ch’an Method is a condensing of the teachings found within the Lankavatara Sutra. Without possessing a copy of this Sutra (which Bodhidharma brought to China in 520 CE) – the “Method” can be easily learned, preserved, and transmitted by word of mouth and through awe-inspiring deportment (hence the “odd” behaviour of many Ch’an Masters and their Disciples). Within ancient China, perhaps around only 10% of the population could read or write. Such men (normally not women) were almost always Confucian Scholar-Officials (or their students). 

​It is also true that some Ch’an Masters were also Confucian Scholars – as were Master Dong and Master Cao – who founded the Caodong School of Ch’an (the two names are reversed to express a better rhythm within Chinese-language speech patterns). Both these men understood the “Yijing” (Change Classic or “I Ching”) and were conversant in the Trigram and Hexagram ideology. This is why the Five Ranks are premised upon two Trigrams and three Hexagrams. The internal logic of how these lines “move” from one structure into another - is the underlying reasoning that serves as the foundation for the Caodong School. The minutiae of this doctrine is not the purpose of this essay (as I have published a paper on this elsewhere). 

​Within genuine Caodong lineages it is taught that the Caodong Five Ranks can be taught as “Three” levels of realisation or attainment:

​1) Guest (Form) – ordinary deluded mind within which the “Void” is not known. (Rank 1)

​2) Host (Void) – the “Void” is known to exist and a method is applied to locate and realise its presence. (Rank 2)

​3) Host-in-Host (Void-Form Integration) – the “Void” is fully realised, aligned, and integrated with the “Form”. (Rank 3, 4 & 5)

​The problem with “lists” is that they are often dry and one-dimensional. What does the above explanation mean in practical reality? The following is how this path is explained from the perspective of experiencer:

​a) When the mind is looked into – all that is seen - is the swirling chaos of delusion (Form).

​b) By applying the Hua Tou or Gongan Method – this confusion ceases, and an “empty” mind is attained. However, this “emptiness” is not permanent and must be continuously accessed through seated meditation to experience it more fully. Furthermore, even when stabilised – this experience of “emptiness” is limited only to the inside of the head. This is “Relative” enlightenment that should not be mistaken for “Full” enlightenment. Despite its limitation, nevertheless, such a realised state is far beyond the ordinary.

​c) When the “empty” mind naturally “expands” it encompass and reflects the physical body and all things within environment (the “Mirror Samadhi”). This is the attainment of “Full” enlightenment - and the realisation of the “turning about” as described in the Lankavatara Sutra. Although no further karma is produced and given that a great amount of past karma has been dissolved, the very presence of a living physical body still attracts karmic debts that may need paying. Further training is required to clear the surface mind of residual “klesa” (delusion) and to purify behavioural responses. Traditionally, the Chinese Ch’an Master refused to speak about the post-enlightenment position.  

Dear B

​As far as I am aware, Master Xu Yun had studied the Yijing as a child (and youth) under the strict supervision of the numerous tutors that his (Scholar-Official) father traversed through the household. This was in preparation for Xu Yun to take the 'Scholar-Official' Government Examination - which required the rote learning of the Four Books and the Five Classics - and the meticulous replication (word for word) of required sections of each text. A good Scholar-Official must demonstrate how he would deal with each real-world incident by referring to a precise and exact extract of whichever divine-text was relevant to the situation. There could be NO deviation from this ancient (and 'perfect') process if a candidate was to be successful. Remember, tens of thousands applied - and only the low-hundreds would be 'Passed' - according to governmental needs (which meant thousands who had 'Passed' would be 'Failed' as no posts existed for them to be allocated toward). 

​On paper (and in public), Master Xu Yun always distanced himself from Confucian and Daoist Texts (the Yijing in China is considered a 'Confucian' Text). This is to be expected from a man who betrayed the will of his father and instead embraced the Path (Dharma) of the Buddha - a religion that even today is considered 'foreign' in China. To be successful on this path - Xu Yun had to completely abandon what appeared to be the worldly path as defined by Chinese convention. Therefore, the (Indian) Vinaya Discipline took the place of the Four Books and the Five Classics. If this was the cae, then why did Xu Yun (privately) advise Charles Luk to study the Yijing and integrate it with the Ch'an Path? In the UK - Richard Hunn (my primary teacher) was considered the most prominent 'Master' of the Yijing - as he could read the original (and ancient) Chinese ideograms and even lectured about this Text to ethnic Chinese students attending University in Great Britain in Putonghua!

​For our Ch'an (Caodong) Lineage (Master Xu Yun inherited and transmitted all Five Houses of Ch'an - but in his private transmission he only favoured the 'Caodong') - the Yijing is a pivotal and yet 'hidden' Text. Remember, the Caodong Masters were also experts in the study of the Yijing - and they used trigrams and hexagrams to devise the Five Ranks System. Xu Yun was the opinion that it is only through the study of the Yijing that the Caodong methodology can be truly understood. In this regard, John Blofeld was never privy to this advanced knowledge. If he met Xu Yun - it was merely for a few minutes where Blofeld (by his own admission) spouted nonsense. Of Course, I salute your efforts and you must never be afraid (as I know you are not) to pull the whiskers of the tiger! 

With Metta

Adrian

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

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

The Fivefold Meditation Consists of the following profound achievements: 

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

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

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

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

The Three Cumulative Conditions: 

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

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

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

The Ten Prohibitions: 

1) Not to take life. 

2) Not to steal. 

3) Not to commit adultery. 

4) Not to lie. 

5) Not to take intoxicating liquor. 

6) Not to take food out of regulated hours. 

7) Not to use garlands or perfumes. 

8) Not to sleep on high or broad beds. 

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

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

(This is a condensation of the Vinaya Rules) 

English Language Reference: 

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

Author’s Note: Charles Luk wrote this Foreword for the British Buddhist – John Blofeld – who had spent time in pre-Revolutionary China (working as an academic in the various Universities) studying Chinese Buddhism and Daoism in his leisure time. During that time, John Blofeld even had a personal encounter with Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) - the details of which are recorded in his biography entitled ‘The Wheel of Life’. John Blofeld also travelled all over Asia before marrying an Asian woman and settling in Thailand. The ‘materialism’ Charles Luk discusses requires clarification. The Buddha recognised that the physical world existed in-front of the senses and that the human mind was ‘attached to that which it ‘sensed’. This physical world, however, exists in a continuous state of flux (or ‘change’), and is ‘empty’ of any substantiality or permanent entity. In the enlightened state, the physical world does not ‘disappear’ as if by magic, but is rather transformed through the attainment and realisation that it is ‘free’ of self, ‘free’ of greed, ‘free’ of hatred and ‘free’ of delusion! The mind is disentangled from its habitual attachment to existing material externals, and the inherently ‘empty’ mind ground is realised, cultivated and developed (as described by the Cao Dong School’s Five Ranks). The Chinese Ch’an School combines the practical teachings of the Pali Suttas and the sublime teachings of the Mahayana Sutras and forms a perfect synthesis of understanding. Charles Luk uses the term ‘materialism’ to describe the mind’s attachment to physical externals, and humanity’s obsession with accumulation of wealth and material goods through the unbridled indulgence of ‘greed’. Charles Luk laments the fact that in the early 1960s, (the time of his writing), people were more interested in the accumulation of external profit, rather than the inner process of spiritual attainment. Whereas the exclusive possession of material goods seldom grants the assumed well-being associated with amassing profit – Charles Luk states that through the proper self-cultivation associated with the inner journey of Ch’an development, true peace of mind and relief from suffering is secured! This ability to ‘self-heal’ - Charles Luk says – resides in the minds of all human-beings! The material world is not necessarily or inherently ‘bad’ per se, but becomes so, depending upon how human-beings decide to relate to it. This is why the enlightened position of the Ch’an Master is described as being ‘neither attached to the (realised) void nor hindered by (the existing) phenomenal world’. Interestingly, Charles Luk discusses the concept of the ‘patient endurance of the uncreate’. After realising relative enlightenment, (or stage three of the Cao Dong School’s Five Ranks System), the perception of emptiness only exists within the mind (or ‘head’) of the individual practitioner. To traverse into the fourth and fifth positions of the Five Ranks – a practitioner must sit with ‘patience’ whilst contemplating the void with non-attachment and adjusting themselves to circumstances. This requires the maintaining of an ‘indifference’ to those circumstance. When this process is facilitated successfully, the emptiness within the head ‘expands beyond the bony limitation of the skull – and ethereally embraces the entire environment (and everything within it). Within phonetical Sanskrit the ‘patient endurance of the uncreate’ is written as ‘anutpattidharmakshanti’, whilst in Sanskrit script it is written as ‘अनुत्पत्तिधर्मक्षान्ति’. ‘Anutpatti’ translates as ‘unborn’, ‘non-born’ ‘uncreated’ - whilst ‘dharma’ represents the ‘entirety of reality’, and ‘kshanti’ equates with ‘patient endurance’. Material reality both ‘exists’ and yet is ‘uncreated’. It takes the practice of the right method of meditation to understand this reality - whilst abiding within the state of eternal patience and endurance (or perseverance). The Standard Sanskrit Dictionary describes this state as being a ‘preparation for a future state, and acquiescence in the state and moral condition which is yet to come.’ A possible Chinese translation is - anutpatti (uncreate) ‘起源’ (Qi Yuan) or ‘that which has not yet come to fruition – but which will eventually germinate and spring-up and sprout from the ground (when watered)’ - reality (dharma) ‘達摩’ (Da Mo) which means ‘unencumbered material reality which is realised (and encountered) everywhere without hindrance’, and ‘尚蒂‘ (Shang Di) ‘to continuously uphold and esteem without hindrance or obstruction’. Therefore, the Sanskrit term ‘अनुत्पत्तिधर्मक्षान’ (anutpattidharmakshanti) is translated into the Chinese language as ‘起源 達摩尚蒂’ - although, of course, there may be other examples generated at different times and in various places as Dynasties (and policies) came and went. Incidentally, the ‘Da Mo’ is exactly the same as that found in the Chinese translation of the name of the Indian Buddhist monk Bodhidharma - ‘菩提達摩’ (Pu Ti Da Mo). ACW (22.10.2020) 

FOREWORD by Charles Luk 

The ancients had their unexcelled ways of teaching which seem strange to the people of this modern age of materialism, not only in the West but also in the East. For the human mind is now more concerned with material than with spiritual values; it seeks only the satisfaction of its ever-increasing desires – though these are the very cause of our sufferings – and it casts away ‘its own treasure house’, which is its paradise of eternal bliss. So long as we allow our minds to discriminate and to grasp at illusion, the ancient teaching will seem strange, even stupid and silly, to us. However, if we succeed in disengaging our minds from externals – that is if we stop all our discriminating and discerning – the profundity of that teaching will become apparent to us, for it inculcates not only theory but also that practice which will give immediate results in the sphere of reality; for a teaching cannot be regarded as complete unless it gives the practical method of reaching the ultimate goal. When the Great Pearl preached his Dharma of instantaneous Awakening, he taught its doctrine, its aim, its substance and its function; thus his teaching consists not only of the right interpretation and correct understanding of theory but also of the practical realisation of substance and function, which are the two essentials of complete enlightenment. In other words, he taught the right Dharma which is immanent in everyone and which does not come from outside. 

The Master’s numerous quotations from Mahayana Sutras, together with his unsurpassed interpretations and comments, show that all great master read the whole Tripitaka before or after their enlightenment, and refutes the unjustifiable contention that sutra can be dispensed with in the Transmission of Mind introduced into China by the Twenty-Eighth Patriarch Bodhidharma. 

The Great Pearl urged his listeners not to let their minds abide anywhere and at the same time to keep from illusory non-abiding, so that a state of all-pervading purity and cleanness would appear of itself. And even this pure state should not be clung to, in order to release the mind from all remaining relatives and thereby attain realisation of the ‘patient endurance of the uncreate’ (anutpattidharmakshanti) which is an essential condition of complete enlightenment. Thus, his instruction followed exactly the same pattern of the Dharma as laid down by the Buddha who said in the Sutra of Complete Enlightenment that his disciples should keep themselves again and again from all illusions, including the illusionary idea of keeping from them, so as to wipe out all traces of subject and object until nothing further remained to be avoided – for only then could bodhi appear in full. 

Therefore, Part One of this book gives the Mahayana instruction for self-realisation of mind, for perception of self-nature and consequent attainment of Buddhahood. And Part Two contains the dialogues between the Great Pearl and those who came to him for instruction. If we seriously follow this teaching and practise self-cultivation, beginning with the mind as the starting point, there is every possibility that we shall succeed in reaching the same mental states as those described by the Great Pearl in his twenty-eight-line gatha. 
​
Charles Luk 
(Upasaka Lu K’uan Yu) 
Hong Kong 

Avoiding the Ten Evil Acts (Dasa Akusala) 

A) The Three Evil Acts Associated with the Bodily-Action: 1) Killing 2) Stealing 3) Adultery 
B) The Four Evil Acts Associated with Speech: 4) Lying 5) Slander 6) Harsh Words 7) Profitless Talk 
C) The Three Evil Acts Associated with the Mind: 8) Greed 9) Hatred 10) Delusion 

As Buddhism is a Form of Mental Hygiene – the Following Must Be Uprooted through Meditation: 

1) Greed (Abhijjha), 2) Hatred (Vyapada), 3) Ill-Will (Kodha), 4) Enmity (Upanaha), 5) Belittling (Makkha), 6) Pretension (Palasa), 7) Envy (Issa), 8) Jealously (Macchariya), 9) Hypocrisy (Maya), 10) Craftiness (Satheyya), 11) Obduracy (Thambha), 12) Vieing (Sarambha), 13) Conceit (Mana), 14) Haughtiness (Atimana), 15) Infatuation (Mada), and 16) Unheedfulness (Pamada).  

As these ‘darken the mind’ they must be ‘uprooted’. 

Ten Moral Acts (Dasa Kusala) 

1) Giving (Dana), 2) Moral Conduct (Sila), Meditation (Bhavana), 4) Respecting the Worthy (Apacayana), 5) Ministering to the Worthy (Veyvavacca), 6) Offering Merit (Pattidana), 7) Partakingbof Merit (Pattanumodana), 8) Hearing the Teaching (Dhammasavana), 9) Teaching the Dhamma (Dhamma Desana) and 10) Rectification of False Views (Ditthijjukamma). 
​
The reality of living in the material world is entirely a matter of casual circumstance. Most people make their way through life in any way they can, regardless of the inherent conditions (good, neutral or bad, etc). The Ch’an masters in the old days were very strict and did not care whatsoever about casual circumstance. Their main emphasis was only to direct the attention ‘inward’ so that the empty mind ground can be fully cognised and integrated with. There is no gossip or discussion tolerated about the nature of the times, with only ‘looking within’ viewed as a valid approach to existence. The Ch’an masters advised that we must ‘adjust ourselves to circumstance’, whilst the mind is turned inward and the interior of conscious awareness illuminated through continuous concentration. This is the essence of the Buddha’s method. Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) lived an extraordinary life and was involved in very important times in historical development, but he was continuously ‘indifferent’ to what was happening around him, whilst taking every ‘correct’ action that was required at the time. Looking within with strength and purpose is not a denial of material reality, but is the acknowledgement of the Buddha’s method. The Ch’an method is nothing but the direct realisation of the empty mind ground so that it becomes the place of permanent abode – an abode which generates loving-kindness, compassion and wisdom!  

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

What happened next? Richard Hunn had talked about separating the ‘bodhis’ from the ‘klesas’ - but like much of his method, a pristine insight was delivered through a typical British sense of humour. He also said that an individual must not be attached to the void nor hindered by phenomena, and that an indeterminate period of further training was required. Within Ch’an training, often it is the case (but not always) that ‘klesa’ still bubble-up to the surface of the mind post-enlightenment, where they can be harmlessly ‘dissolved’ through the power and strength of meditative insight (prajna). What are ‘klesa’? Klesa are psychological and emotional distractions of various strength, thought to be the product of eons of generating thoughts premised upon greed, hatred and delusion, through the filter of subject-object duality. In modern terms, this is the disrupting (and potentially damaging) reactions in the mind that respond to, and condition further actions and reactions in the physical environment. If a strictly scientific analysis is applied, klesa are the negative thoughts and feelings that cause distress to an individual that have been imported into the interior of the personal mind from the conditioning elements of the collective environment since birth. The Buddha states that a type of rebirth (but not reincarnation) operates within his system, whilst also asserting that at the point of enlightenment (viewed as the stage of ‘relative enlightenment’ as recorded by the ‘3rd’ position of the Caodong School) all rebirth ceases (as the ridge-pole of ignorance is forever broken), and is understood to be non-existent. Therefore, within the enlightened state, rebirth does not exist and only APPEARS to exist in the unenlightened state (probably because it was a common belief in India when the Buddha was alive). Of course, ‘rebirth’ can be imagined as existing as virtually everything can. In this scenario a vivid depository of thoughts may exist in the mind apparently linked to other existences, and this is an experience I have had during meditation (seeing previous existences in China), recognising friends and family around me today, as characters previously existing in bygone lifetimes in different places. The Ch’an method interprets all this as delusion which must be ‘given-up’ if the empty mind ground is to be realised. From 1992 until today (2019) I have been adjusting myself to circumstance. Physical existence appears to be happening within a glowing luminosity, an empty three-dimensional space or void that contains all things. Material objects and the physical world appear real in their own right, but inhabit this infinite, vacuous reality without hindrance or contradiction. Thoughts and feelings yet again move across the surface of the mind but are now both in the ‘present’ and yet fully ‘transparent’. This flow of conscious paraphernalia is no longer hindering or obscuring, but a natural part of physical existence. It no longer possesses historical roots, but appears purely existential in nature (linked entirely to my present and unfolding existence). As time goes by I find myself becoming ever more deeply ‘aware’ of this reality and its processes.  

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.