styrofoamdog

Those who read the Buddhist sutras will know that none of these things qualify as samadhi or dhyana.

Hi folks.

 

So, by a massive windfall of fortune, I happened upon Chan and Zen Teachings third series, translated by Charles Luk in a used books store for a fraction of what it goes for, used, online. Seems there are very few copies of this around and I have never heard of The Sutra of Complete Enlightenment, Han Sha commentary anywhere else.

 

This sutra, especially the chapter "Boddhisatva Clean Karma" with the commentary by Han Shan, is absolutely, wow. However, there seems to be almost no availability even from Amazon.

 

Does anyone know about these Sutras or sources of this book, and where people might obtain copies?

 

 

Thanks..

Charles Luk's works are all excellent, not to mention master Hanshan's commentaries. I would try getting this book through an inter-library loan. It appears that some libraries do have this book, so you can probably borrow it for free, although it may take some time for the book to arrive.

WorldCat results: Ch'an and Zen Teachings #3

I think trans must be wrong at a point.

 

"The Buddha said, "Sariputra, this buddha-field is always thus pure, but the Tathagata makes it appear to be spoiled by many faults, in order to bring about the maturity of the inferior impure living beings. For example, Sariputra, the gods of the Trayastrimsa heaven all take their food from a single precious vessel, yet the nectar which nourishes each one differs according to the differences of the merits each has accumulated. Just so, Sariputra, living beings born in the same buddha-field see the splendor of the virtues of the buddha-fields of the Buddhas according to their own degrees of purity." "

 

I would cross out everything malevolent or violent, because it is likely distorted interpretations vying for power stemming from greed.

The original term may be a common Sanskrit one that means something like "ordinary ignorant person." The equivalent Chinese term is fan fu (凡夫). The key component fan (凡) means "ordinary," "common," or "worldly."

If you have William Bodri's ebook "How to measure and deepen your spiritual realization" is there any useful stuff found in Working Toward Enlightenment and To Realize Enlightenment by Nan Huai-Chin?

Yes, these books are very different, and Working Toward Enlightenment and To Realize Enlightenment are also packed with useful information (but they definitely assume familiarity with cultivation methods and meditation). William Bodri and Nan Huai-Chin have pretty different teaching styles, and if you become familiar with the materials of one, it will help you appreciate the other. Nan Huai-Chin's teachings are steeped ancient Chinese culture, and his teaching style is very traditional and poetic. William Bodri is more modern, and has the perspective of a westerner. They are kind of from two opposite worlds, but of course the basic teachings of Zen, meditation methods, and the stages will not be radically different. It's more like two physics professors with different teaching styles.

I just recently was lucky enough to acquire this book. I won't have the chance to read it as I'm just getting started with Red Pine's translation of the Lankavantara Sutra. But after that I'll read through the anthology. And after THAT will be

 

Scripture on the Explication of Underlying Meaning

The Samdhinirmocana Sutra (Scripture on the Explication of Underlying Meaning) is really excellent. I can't recommend that one enough. The Numata Center version in the link above is the best translation so far.

So little of this thread has any bearing on the actual practice of the Dharma in meditation, and most of the comments here are speculation. What was spoken by this teacher is correct to some extent, but if you do not actually follow that path and cultivation the realization of these truths, then it's just a poison. Again, no matter how enlightened someone is, if they give you instructions, and you do not actually carry through with them, then your practice is in vain. No intellectual understanding can take the place of true realization through practice.

I was reading about this Sutra just now in a Nan Huai Chin book, he says it is one of the most important and useful Sutras you can find, you can find free copies online but I wonder what the best translation is?

There are three principle translations that I am aware of:

1. Translation by Charles Luk. This is available in PDF format online for free (legally), but is a bit older, and is not in a very convenient format for reading. Some notes by Hanshan Deqing from the Ming Dynasty are included.
    
   
2. First translation by the Buddhist Text Translation Society. This is just the sutra text, and there are some 8 or 9 additional volumes available of Master Hsuan Hua's commentary, which were published in the same "series".
    
   
3. Second translation by the Buddhist Text Translation Society. This is meant to replace the previous version, and is a completely new translation. It includes a little commentary by Master Hsuan Hua.
   

Of the three texts, I like #3 the most. It is in a very nice format, and represents the "latest and greatest" of the Shurangama Sutra translations. When it came out, it was even given a little website: http://surangama.drba.org.

This is actually very typical for laypeople in the Theravada tradition. If you check out the old Pali suttas as well, laypeople are often just given the simplest instructions, and not expected to meditate, or have any interest in meditation. In other words, if you are a layperson, your traditional role is mostly to make merit by supporting the monastic community.

In East Asian and Tibetan traditions there is little difference between the ideals for monastics and laypeople. This is because Mahayana teachings often do not draw any distinction between the two, and both are expected and encouraged to practice the bodhisattva path, which includes meditation. As a result, meditation is more common and encouraged for laypeople.

In regarding to the tenses, is a subject matter, our main concern is the root word which was used in the phrase. However, the tense was determined within the context and was mentally understood. The meaning of hua by the character itself is "transform"; but when it was used in phrase, the original meaning was altered.

 

Exactly, this is not the case at all. It seems to mean that Jing was in a process producing some Chi instead of transforming into Chi. The logic just doesn't flow when translating "hua" as "transform". As far as interpreting Classic Chinese, the reader has the option to determine what a particular character means within context. The meaning of the character does't not have to be abide by its actual meaning. Thus, in this case, "transform" is not very logical for the meaning of "hua" in the phrases.

 

Yes, Shen was not gone. The translation was done as "shen is transforming into emptiness" as the end result, then what is the final interpretation...??? What does "emptiness" mean here...??? "Shen" just went into thin air...??? Can you give me some kind of logical conclusion what the end result was...???

I think a lot of this has to do with the interpretation of "transforms." If someone understands this as meaning that it has 100% transformed, then that may be a problem. "Transforming" would emphasize the continuation of the process, and that might be one possibility.

The way I see it, jing actually does transform into qi, qi into shen, and shen into emptiness. Otherwise these things would always be there, and to become an immortal, it is necessary to refine coarse energy (e.g. jing) into ever more subtle and perfected energy spiritual energy (e.g. shen). But this is a continuous and lengthy process. And even if someone attained immortality in this life, they would still have some jing and qi.

In the Buddhist view as well, through meditation one refines sustaining qi to reward-body qi, and then to seed qi (the qi of karmic seeds in the Alayavijnana). Each level is progressively more difficult to access, more rarified, and more powerful. Still, even after attaining the highest levels of dhyana, life in the ordinary world means that some sustaining qi will always be present. Since the body contains tens of thousands of qi channels, there is always some movement or flow.

I would regard emptiness as being similar to clear and empty consciousness. All the previous stages are defined by forms of matter and energy that were in duality with the mind of the meditator. Emptiness then refers to a stage in which the three previous forms of energy merge with the mind ("returning"), which then operates in such a unified and luminous clarity that it seems utterly "empty." I do not believe that this refers to any "disappearance" of energy.

What makes you think you're capable of judging?

A real enlightened master doesn't put up a website that constantly claims that he is an enlightened spiritual master. This is basic to all Buddhist schools, including Jodo Shinshu. In no less than the Diamond Sutra, it is stated quite bluntly that even a srotaapanna will not go around claiming to be a srotaapanna (much less an arhat, an advanced bodhisattva, or a buddha).

Guys, this guy is NOT an enlightened master. Energy healing? Spiritual protection circles? Does a supremely enlightened being teach the New Age topics on his website? Apparently he was enlightened after attending a "personal growth seminar." I guess someone needs to be the new Max Christensen or David Verdesi, though.

Even over a thousand years ago, the word hua still meant "transform" or "change." Also, I just want to point out that there is no past tense in this passage, so I would not translate hua as "transformed," but rather as "transforms." It may just be clumsy wording in the original Chinese work, as these matters are not always easy to convey. Ideally, every part of a text is understood when translating, but interpretations should not stray from the original language. That is the problem with so many coffee table Daodejing translations, all saying something completely different.

The interpretations of this passage seem to assume that it's an all-or-nothing affair. That is to say, when jing transforms into qi, there is no jing left. That is not the case at all. The same goes for the third line. When shen transforms into emptiness, it's not that all the shen is gone. It just means that shen is transforming into emptiness. Shen returning to emptiness seems to just describe the end result of all the previous transformations.

Yes it seems there are different instructions, the ones here http://www.scribd.com/doc/67064883/William-Bodri-How-to-Practice-the-White-Skeleton-Meditation don't have much of the disgust meditation on the more repulsive parts of the body but the instructions elsewhere do. The more detailed meditation of this type which Bodri teaches seems more similar to the Chod techniques of Machig Labdron rather than straight from the Buddha, so this elaboration could come from there.

 

Personally I found it a good meditation because by focusing on the bones you ground the meditation in the earth element which I find gives the meditation stability so as things come and go I was less easily taken by them and could remain detached more easily, yet I can't find where the Buddha emphasised the focus on the bones his instructions seem to talk about all parts of the body equally, so I wonder where the emphasis on the bones came from.

The version of the White Skeleton Meditation that William Bodri teaches is the one taught by Nan Huai-Chin, which in turn comes from a dhyana manual that was translated by Kumarajiva in the early 5th century, Chanmi Yaofa Jing (禪祕要法經). Not sure what the original Sanskrit title was, though. The method is not quite the same as the formula used in some sutras that are in the Pali Canon. It is more complex and there are many variations and different ways to practice.

How odd! This is precisely what Master Nan Huai-Chin teaches also! He says since the time of the passing of Shakyamuni Buddha only 5 people in the whole world have achieved anything like this (ie - realizing all three kayas)! Not even the Zen Patriarchs (he said) reached close to the equivalent of Shakyamuni's perfect and supreme enlightenment.

Many Zen masters attained the Dharmakaya, but few really attained the Sambhogakaya. When people get some taste of an "empty" state of mind, they tend to think this is the ultimate, and become attached to it. The Mahayana method is difficult because it is basically non-abiding, a state that is not really a state, because it is literally inconceivable.

I liked Nan Hai-Chin's Working Toward Enlightenment, To Realize Enlightenment and Tao and Longevity.

Indeed. Those first two books have gone out of print, and are now rare. They are gems, though, and contain so much interesting and advanced material. His book of conversations with Peter Senge from MIT is also very good, and covers anapana quite a bit. Even years ago on Tao Bums I posted my old anapana meditation reference, as I poured through these books looking for the details.

No matter who you ask in this forum, someone will have a different explanation of it, but that someone probably does not have the same insight as the Buddha in the Diamond Sutra. Originally the monks in India and other countries would recite the sutras frequently as a form of cultivation. If someone reads a sutra like this regularly, then it is pretty similar, as long as the process is continuous. If you want to know how to develop what the Buddha is talking about in the Diamond Sutra, well, that's the basic purpose of that sutra itself: to teach Subhuti how to develop the mind of unsurpassed and complete enlightenment. If you try to find a "Cliff Notes" version or a summary written by someone else, then that's not the same thing as studying the sutra directly.

Subhūti, bodhisattvas should depart from all characteristics in order to develop the mind of Anuttarā Samyaksaṃbodhi. They should produce a mind that does not dwell in form. They should produce a mind that does not dwell in sounds, scents, tastes, sensations, or dharmas. They should produce a mind that does not dwell in any place. In anything that dwells in the mind, one should not dwell ...

It doesn't say that one shouldn't produce a mind that is not aware of anything. It just says that the mind should not dwell in anything. All day long thoughts and images arise in the mind. Some seem to exist there for only a split second, while others seem to hang over us or obstruct mental clarity. No matter what, though, these are basically illusory and transient. This is the same principle of non-abiding that runs through the whole sutra. Actually, this is the basic method prescribed in nearly all the old Mahayana sutras: non-abiding.

These are some translations I've made over the last few years:

Lapis Lazuli Texts: Translations

There are a few short Daoist classics in here (Baizi Bei and Qingjing Jing), but most of the focus is on Buddhist sutras from the Chinese Buddhist canon. I've been starting to write a few articles as well, but that effort is definitely in the early stages. The end goal is a nice set of freely-available translations and some articles on meditation and cultivation to supplement these. I'll stop plugging my own site now.

Rulu also has a nice site with translations of mostly Mahayana texts, including some rare ones that most scholars on the matter aren't even aware of:

SutrasMantras.info

Rulu has many translations, and it must have taken quite a long time to make all of them. I think there are only a very few people who are doing their own translation projects like this. They are very much DIY efforts.

This "teacher" is exceptionally stupid. He's not enlightened at all. Be very careful with this guy. He'll intensify your delusion rather than clear it up for you. Replacing "something" delusion with "nothing" delusion is a fool's game. He's not showing you how to investigate matters. Instead he's putting his foolish thoughts into your mind (because you allow it).

Please don't drag down the level of discussion by calling people stupid and foolish. From the few isolated quotes reproduced here, second-hand and paraphrased, it is difficult to say a whole lot about the matter. However, it does seem to appear from the quotations that the teacher is describing a method of cultivating emptiness, and some of his statements are definitely similar to methods in the Avatamsaka Sutra. He does not appear to be advocating that people adopt a "notion of nothingness."

The reason that the Buddha taught no-self was to allow people to let go of this impermanent self that is created by the mind. Apart from the mind, self never exists, and the skandha of vijnana is the only thing that sustains it. Even after death, a new intermediate body is created by the mind, through grasping and the power of karma. It will then find a new body in one of the various realms of existence in accordance with this. If anyone considers himself a Buddhist but doubts reincarnation, they should read about yoga in the bardo state, because this explains the exact steps of dying, and the stages between lives. There are practices at various points in this process, so it was important that they were recorded.

There is a deviant nihilistic view that is basically the same as what was rejected by the Buddhist sutras, that the doctrine of no-self implies that there is no reincarnation, or that nothing even matters. This makes no sense, and could not be consistent with Buddhist views. This is in strong contrast to the very basis of the earliest Buddhism and the tradition of shramanas that it came out of in India. For Buddhists and all the shramanas, karma, cyclic existence, and escape from it are very fundamental. Now in the West, there are some people calling themselves Buddhists who believe that there is no rebirth and therefore that no karma will follow them. These people are clinging to a notion of emptiness, and denying the other fundamental principle of karma and conditioned existence. Without karma and conditioned existence, Buddhism would be no different from nihilism. Without cyclic existence, there would be no need to practice Buddhism because even the worst murderers would enter extinction upon death.

The reason for the teaching of no-self is to break up the false self, which exists provisionally without any absolute existence, just as any other conditioned phenomena (including everything in the universe). The basis of this is the unconditioned reality that is the substratum of both mind and karmic existence. The unconditioned can be spoken of in negative terms such as emptiness and no-self, but it is not really lacking anything. It can also be spoken of as the True Self, Buddha-nature, or Tathagatagarbha, or simply the Buddha, to use positive terms. For example, the Nirvana Sutra speaks of it as Self, permanence, existence, bliss. The Lotus Sutra teaches similarly that the Buddha taught no-self, in order for people to reach realization of the eternal Buddha and enlightenment. There are also neutral terms such as Tathagata, thus, such, thusness, suchness, equality, and simply this.

It's not so difficult, but it becomes difficult when people want simple answers to cling to. When people wanted to cling to a notion of a self, the Buddha taught no-self. When people began to cling to no-self and emptiness, he taught the True Self and Buddha-nature. He always turns back people who dwell in various notions, to point them to the truth. Don't cling to every word, read between the lines and study deeply. The problem today is that people read a little bit and then start publishing books, misleading people. This happened with Alan Watts writing naive things like the idea that Zen Buddhism denies reincarnation. Things like this can mislead an entire generation. If people read the Buddhist sutras directly, then Buddhism will definitely improve in the West.

The problem becomes difficult when someone reads a commentary and takes that as authoritative. No matter what, it is one degree of separation between the original text and the reader, and the original texts have layers of meaning. Add to that the differences in culture, depth, and traditions, and people can end up with some really strange views. This happens a lot in Tibet with Yogacara texts, where the views don't actually match those of the earlier Yogacara school in India. Another example is the Japanese Pure Land schools, which all place a premium on faith in Amitabha Buddha as a Jesus-like savior figure. They totally ignore the earliest traditions such as those of the Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra, which clearly teach that bodhisattvas use the name of Amitabha Buddha as a mantra primarily for entering samadhi. The element of faith is simply there to unify the mind, as the practices of Amitabha are akin to early deity yoga, and they also include bardo practices. The Japanese schools think that superstitious faith is good enough, so naturally anyone who can make progress is rare. This is how traditions die. These are examples for us, so we can learn from the mistakes they made along the way.

Do the criticized teachings have their own self-criticisms? If yes, we can go easy on them. I believe it's true of the Mahayana, the way of the Bodhisattvas, which has sufficient self-criticism. It also may be somewhat true of Dzogchen, because I've at least heard of its own practitioners criticizing it, if not the texts. What about the others on the list?

 

If a teaching is cognizant of its own limitations, that's OK.

The Buddha usually uses silence or says "thus", "such", or "thusly". Even the term "Tathagata" is referring to suchness. He does not criticize the teachings per se, but does point out that they are not the reality of the truth itself. In the Diamond Sutra, he says "The so-called Buddha Dharma is not the Buddha Dharma", and "The Prajnaparamita expounded by the Buddha is not Prajnaparamita". At other times, though, he does say "Such is the True Dharma", referring in a concealed way to suchness, and in a naive way to the teachings previously given. The sutras are often written in a way that causes people of low capacity to revere them, and people of high capacity to see beyond to the ultimate truth.

I don't equate meditation with legs or with some particular mental activity. So mind racing and legs getting cold are not impediments and do not necessarily need improvement. Or you can improve them, because such conditions don't have to be preserved as is either.

...

You might need to be more patient, or you may be hindered by an assumption. Assumption is a safer bet.

...

Exactly this happened to me in the past. I was hindered by an assumption about body, mind, the world, etc.

...

These are just examples that the people could get hung up on. Everyone is hindered by something. If they weren't, they would already be a buddha. For some people a short text is enough, but for others a longer text is necessary. One is not necessarily better than another. The important thing is that it helps someone at a particular time.

It's definitely criticizing the doctrine because people made all those doctrines under the influence of delusion. Had the people not been deluded, they'd make much simpler doctrines (as opposed to splitting things up into levels and areas and so on, and treating all these splits seriously, as if they were real).

 

Another way to see it is this. Had that practitioners not been swayed by the criticized delusions, they wouldn't have selected those respective doctrines for themselves.

 

It's also true that you can look at any deluded doctrine through the wisdom eye and see nothing but wisdom, but that's not the same thing as the doctrine being OK.

They were not made under delusion, they were made well, and they were always good. Of course they were not infinitely effective because they are only words, and need to be interpreted by the mind of the reader. The problem was that people clung to them. It is the same if people cling to a notion of a mindstream, or a notion that one thing is delusion and another is the true mind. Then we would need to add a line in the tantra for Dzogchen people being obscured by attachments to the mindstream and the natural state. No matter how virtuous, wise, simple, and true to reality a doctrine is, there will always be a need to turn people away from clinging to it. There is often even a need to turn people away from the notion of turning away. If there were only perfect teachings of silence, only a few people would understand them. If they were too simple, they would not be comprehensive enough to teach people who still have delusions.

For example, the Heart Sutra is very simple and directs the mind toward the natural state and true suchness. If everyone had sufficient prajna, they could just read it, put it into practice, and become buddhas. However, what happens one day when your legs are freezing cold in meditation, and your mind is constantly agitated? How do you deal with those things? Your meditation is supposed to be improving, so why does it seem to be getting worse? What if serious health problems arise, or your meditation goes off course? Can you really just sit in meditation in the natural state then? What if you are practicing, but you don't seem to be getting any results? Every day you meditate, but your mind and body do not go through any transformations? Should you use a different meditation method? And what if you get to a particular state of mind, and you don't know what its significance is?

In some esoteric texts, it is all expressed as the Sanskrit syllable short-A, but what help is that to the average person? The Lotus Sutra, Vimalakirti Sutra, and Diamond Sutra all give teachings of silence, but in those texts even the Buddha's disciples are unable to fully appreciate this. For most people, it seems that the truly simple and short teachings are just not enough. But how much is enough? Is the Diamond Sutra at 15 pages enough? Or the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra at 250 pages? Or the Avatamsaka Sutra at 1500 pages? Or the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra at 15,000 pages? And what about the particular approach? Should it be analytical like Yogacara, lofty like Madhyamaka, or transcendent like Prajnaparamita?

There are these different remedies because there are different illnesses. Everyone will gravitate toward different teachings and various interpretations. This entire range is why the Buddhist teachings are extremely broad and deep. In English, an entire translation of the Chinese Buddhist canon would be at least 500 large volumes. Just to translate all the teachings in its tantra section would be at least 16,000 pages.

It's definitely criticizing the doctrine because people made all those doctrines under the influence of delusion. Had the people not been deluded, they'd make much simpler doctrines (as opposed to splitting things up into levels and areas and so on, and treating all these splits seriously, as if they were real).

 

Another way to see it is this. Had that practitioners not been swayed by the criticized delusions, they wouldn't have selected those respective doctrines for themselves.

 

It's also true that you can look at any deluded doctrine through the wisdom eye and see nothing but wisdom, but that's not the same thing as the doctrine being OK.

No, it's definitely not criticizing the doctrine. The real truth is the Dharmakaya, and it is completely inconceivable by the mind. It cannot be fathomed, spoken in words, or inhered by anything. Even a billion eloquent words could not communicate it completely. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra with its 600 chapters all pointing to the truth cannot give anyone this, and they are ultimately insufficient. This goes for the Dzogchen texts as well. They are all just words. But if you don't accept any words or explanations, you will never understand the theory or how to practice. The tantra is stating that these explanations act to obscure the mind when people cling to them, and it is exactly right. They were not made from delusion, they were taught out of compassion for sentient beings who all require guidance. The Buddhist teachings are very deep and helpful, but they are still words, and theory is never the ultimate truth itself. The teachings should not be neglected, but people should also not become attached to them. The tantra is helping point this out to the reader that attachment to any hermeneutic obscures the truth.

A Zen master said, "My words are poison, but if you don't listen, your sickness cannot be cured."

You are crazy. I wasn't even talking about God or some universal essence. I have no idea why you decided to say that. I quoted that bit to show that at least one Vajrayana tantra criticizes everything and not just sutras. That was the main point. My secondary point was that consciousness is superior to any secret teaching, and I highlighted that part in the quote. I didn't even have God in mind. Not at all. The fact that you're talking about it means you're a lunatic. You've lost track of what's happening. You're barking at the shadows.

I didn't see the quote as criticizing doctrine, but rather the various notions that people cling to based on doctrine.

In the Diamond Sutra, the Buddha would say that the true appearance is not an appearance, and thus the Tathagata speaks of a true appearance. Another line is that all appearances are empty and false, and if all appearances are not seen as appearances, then this is perceiving the Tathagata. Yet another is that the unified appearance cannot be spoken (cannot be thought, cannot be communicated, cannot be grasped), yet ordinary people try vainly to acquire it. The words in the tantra seem very much in line with this, saying that no explanation or systematic philosophy can imbue someone with the ultimate truth of the true nature of the mind -- that it is unconditioned by anything. These teachings are meant to cut off grasping and teach non-attachment to any mental phenomena. That is, that all words and teachings are conscious fabrications only.

Zen also does things to shock people and pry them away from their attachments. In one case, a Zen Buddhist master ordered his disciples to prepare a non-vegetarian feast. This was strictly against the precepts in China, completely taboo and terrible for monks or nuns. Most of the disciples turned away and left him. It was just a test, and the ones who had the real Dharma Eye and stayed were the ones who received his teachings.