<< back |
printable version |
| |
|
Chapter 2: Mu and the Sutras |
|
A monk asked Zen master Joshu "Does a dog have the Buddha-nature?" |
|
Buddha's raftBuddha said his teaching was like a raft, to be used simply as a means of crossing the ocean of birth and death. On one occasion he asked, "And when you are across, will you continue to carry the raft on your head?" This indeed is what we have done. Not only have we carried the raft on our head, we have also put it into glass cases in museums. We have studied, analyzed, and reproduced it; we have asked "who really made it, what is it made of, how was it made, when was it made, what kind of wood was used?" These and so many other questions have been asked of it. Far from using the teaching to cross the ocean and then letting it go, we have even brought it into the living room, have tried to find a place for it among the rest of the furniture. The soteriology of BuddhismWhen Buddha said his teaching was a raft, he meant that it was directed towards practice. He was not interested in philosophy nor theology, even though so many philosophies have been founded in his name, and though his teaching has been made into a religion. It has been claimed at different times that his teaching was idealist, realist, pessimistic, other worldly. But none of this applies to Buddha's teaching because, as he said, when one reaches the other shore one discards it. A theory claims an absolute status for itself, it claims to be true, and true not only for the time being, but for all time. But it could be said that Buddha was not even interested in the truth, or at least not in the truth which can be found, expressed in concepts and ideas, a truth that can be debated. Some say that Buddha's way is a science, that we should accept what he says as a theory and then prove it for ourselves. Much can be said for this point of view but, even so, it still implies that something needs to be known, learnt, discovered or uncovered; it still suggests that, what is a theory at one time, will become fact later. Yet one should not look in the realm of fact, in the realm of ontology nor epistemology, nor even in ethics or theology, for the meaning of what Buddha taught.. Perhaps the nearest that we can get to a correct designation of Buddha's teaching is to call it soteriology. Unfortunately this has strong Christian overtones, but when it is remembered that the word is derived from a Greek work soterion, meaning deliverance, then the aptness of the word is obvious. One should accept the teaching as a way of deliverance, and this would imply deliverance form the teaching as well. The importance of the sutrasScholars have preserved the raft, and for this we must be very grateful. Buddha did not say that we had to swim across the ocean of birth and death, which is really what so many self-styled teachers mean when they declare that no teaching is necessary and that religions are simply a cause of conflict and confusion. Because of the work of the scholars, those of us who do want to get to the other shore have the teaching available and in a form more or less accessible. To benefit from it, to be 'delivered' by it, we must take it out of he realm of scholarship into the realm of practice. To do this we must make it sea-worthy. One must throw off so much of the ballast, get rid of what is not necessary, make it more serviceable and it is with this in mind, and in the hope that it might make some contribution in this direction, that this book was written. Undoubtedly the Zen masters studied the sutras and many of the koans, those enigmatic stories used in practice, come directly out of this study. In doing this the Masters used the sutras as tools for work, not as objects for appreciation. Let us try to do the same and look at the sutras as vehicles with which to cross to the other side. The sutras that we shall be studying are the Prajnaparamita Hridaya, the Diamond sutra, parts of the Vimalakirti sutra, the Platform sutra and the Lankavatara sutra. The first two are sufficiently short that we can comment upon them in their entirety, the others are much longer and it would be too difficult a task to comment upon them in their entirety. The first four are all of the same school of Buddhism, the Prajnaparamita school. The last is the sutra most closely associated with the entry of Zen into China and was the sutra that Bodhidharma, the first Chinese patriarch, brought with him in the 5th century AD from India to China. The Prajnaparamita Hridaya is the condensation of a much longer work, which originally had a hundred thousand lines. This was then abridged to eight thousand lines and then finally to the Hridaya. Hridaya means 'heart' or 'essence.' Yet the Prajnaparamita Hridaya can, in its turn, also be condensed. Traditionally it is said that it can be condensed to the letter "A." From the point of view of people who are working on koans as the basis of their practice it is makes more sense to say that it can be reduced to Mu!. Mu! is the essence of the Prajnaparamita. This means that a study of the Prajnaparamita can give us a background for the practice with Mu. For those who are unfamiliar with the koan Mu!, it is the first in a collection of forty eight koans called the Mumonkan. According to this koan a monk asked Zen master Joshu, "Does a dog have the Buddha nature?" and master Joshu replied, "Mu!" Tradition has it that all beings are Buddha. Why then does Joshu say "Mu!" which means "No!"? The same question can be asked of the Prajnaparamita. In the sutra it says "No eyes, ears, nose, tongue." Why does it say this when it is obvious that we do have eyes, ears, nose, and so on? In other words. both the sutra and the koan push us to investigate what we usually take for granted. What does it mean to say "I" "have" eyes, ears, nose? What does it mean to say that a dog has, or does not have, the Buddha nature? A few words on Metaphysics and OntologyBefore going on, let us try to place Buddhism, and the sutras, within the general scheme of human spirituality. Fundamentally, in the evolution of consciousness and culture, two forms of religious expression have emerged: prayer and meditation. Whether we pray or meditate will depend upon our basic metaphysics, specifically our basic ontology. Just as one of Molière's characters was surprised to find that he spoke and wrote prose, so most of us are surprised to learn that we have a basic metaphysics and ontology. As young children, each of us had to come to some fundamental conclusions about the world and its structure, as well as our place within this structure. Philosophy, or at least metaphysics, is just this. For most of us our philosophy is gained, and held, unconsciously rather than consciously and so it remains unexamined. Most of us opt for some dualistic understanding of the world and our place in it. Why this is so is somewhat out of the range of this outline; let us just say that we most often decide that a world is "out there" and I am "in here". Normally, because most people do not think about it any further, this view becomes entrenched as their reality and is taken for granted. So, instead of saying, "It is as though a world is out there, and as though 'I am' in here," we say, quite simply, and believe without doubt, "It is there, and I am here." But even so, we have an intuitive sense of our own individuality, and of the of the world, as coherent, an undivided whole. Do we not speak of a universe, which means turning towards the one? This intuition comes from a deep sense of unity, a sense of wholeness. This means that on the one hand is fundamental unity, on the other is the dualism 'me' and 'the world.' Our dualistic view of the world, according to Buddha, gives birth to suffering. The word used by Buddha for suffering was dukkha which means twoness. (du =two; kha =ness). To cure this suffering we have to heal the wound that we have created by the way that we see the world. The word 'heal' comes from the same verbal root as 'whole' and 'holy.' We are impelled to find wholeness again and most of us believe that we must do so by looking for unity either "out there" or "in here." When we look for it out there, in a religious way, we look for it as a transcendent One or Whole that we believe is there. Traditionally, in Christianity, this One was called God. Alternatively when we look for unity "in here", we look for it as a transcendent Whole, but this time as a unified Self or supreme, subjective One, as for example Atman in the Vedanta tradition. This is often called the Self with a capital S to distinguish it from the mundane, dualistic self of every day experience. Prayer could be looked upon as an attempt to make contact with the transcendent One "out there," and meditation as an attempt to make contact with the transcendent One "in here." Of course this is an oversimplification of what can be seen as very complex and subtle. Furthermore it is not everyone who takes his or her original metaphysics as an ultimate statement of truth, and many have subjected this metaphysics to subtle analysis. Even so "God" and the "Self" are in the main the two broad ways that human beings have gone in search of peace and relief from suffering. If we see Unity as objective, as out there, then the subjective, the self, is but a ghost or phantom. In this case, God is the Supreme Reality or Supreme Being. If unity is 'in here,' subjective, then the objective is an illusion, the world is a dream. In this case the Self is the Supreme Reality. Most people believe that Buddhism opts for the second of these two alternatives. This belief, although erroneous, is not confined simply to non-Buddhists but is held by some Buddhists also, including many Zen Buddhists. By meditating, it is felt, the Buddhist searches for transcendental unity through the Self or Subjective Unity sometimes known as the Buddha Nature, or Self Nature. Other Buddhists have come to believe that this Unity is out there in a Pure Land attained by way of the Buddha Amida. This too is erroneous - Buddhism is based neither upon subjective Unity nor objective Unity, nor upon a fusion of the two, nor even upon a denial of the importance of Unity. The basis of Buddhism is impermanence, suffering, and no absolute self: In the Anguttara-Nikaya sutra it says that it is "an unalterable fact, an unalterable condition of existence and an eternal law that all karmic formations are impermanent (anicca)... subject to suffering (dukkha)... and non-absolute (anatman i.e. without unchangeable or absolute ego-identity)" This means that no world exists "out there". What we conceive of as a fixed, permanent and absolute "something" is an illusion. It would naturally follow from this that no Supreme Being, no fixed cause uncaused, in fact no fixed and permanent God can be found.... God too is impermanent. It is true also that no Self lurks "in here" either, no soul or Spirit, no Overself, Cosmic Consciousness, or Buddha Nature: in other words no ultimate Subjective One. Buddha Nature too, as Dogen said, is impermanence. Anatman means just that: no self. Furthermore, it is the very belief in an objective One or a subjective One that is the cause of suffering. On the face of it it would seem that Buddha was completely nihilistic or was preaching a doctrine of total negation. But to think this way means that one has yet to see the radicalness of Buddha's teaching. To appreciate this let us consider for a moment total negation as a way. Negation as a wayNegation has been a way by which mystics have attempted to express transcendental unity. Two streams flow through the Christian tradition: the Kataphatic and the Apophatic. The Kataphatic tradition is "the tradition of light; it arrives at an understanding of God through affirmation: we come to know God by affirming he possesses all the perfection we find in creatures". But, as Thomas Merton makes clear when he discusses the opposite tradition, the Apophatic tradition, the Kataphatic tradition cannot penetrate to the deepest essence. The Apophatic tradition "concerns itself with the most fundamental datum of all faith - and one that is often forgotten: the God who reveals Himself to us in His Word has revealed himself as unknown in his ultimate essence. The presence of God shining, not in clear vision, but as 'unknown'. God, as referred to here, is a God of extreme subtlety. God is, but is unknown. His being is absolute, but absolutely unknowable. Absolute transcendental Unity is affirmed, but as unknowable. Prajna and ZenThe Buddha's Way is not the way of affirmation or denial, Kataphatic or Apophatic, it is not the Way of the Supreme Being nor the Supreme Self. In a well known Zen koan a Zen Master, holding up a stick, says "If you call this a stick you conceal it; if you say it is not a stick you deny it. What is it?" Some commentators feel that the master, by his words and actions, simply wants us to help us escape from the snare of language. Yet, although language does undoubtedly represent a snare for the unwary, it would be a mistake to think that this koan is simply pointing to a problem of words and thoughts and that the master is just wanting to get us beyond words and thoughts. This would like saying that Buddhism and Zen are simply another expression of the Apophatic tradition. Certainly "stick" is a word and so to say 'it''is a stick' is to say that 'it' can be known; to say 'it' is not a stick would be to say that 'it' cannot be known. But even so, known or unknown we are still left with 'it.' To say it is a stick is to affirm; this is, so to say, in the kataphatic tradition. To say it is not a stick is to negate, and this is in the apophatic tradition. In another koan a Zen master said "if you say you have a stick I will give you one, if you say you do not have a stick I will take it from you" In other words when you say you have a stick you are simply grasping an Idea so the stick can still be given to you; if you say you do not have a stick you may have got beyond the Idea, but you are still left with an underlying inarticulate 'something': an ontological residue which can still be taken away. Again to say you have a stick would be within the kataphatic tradition. To say you do not have a stick is in the apophatic tradition. How does one get beyond both? The sutras that we shall be discussing, as well as Zen koans, are a response to this question. Prajna paramita prajnaThe sutras and the koans are sayings or, sometimes, the doings of Buddha and the Zen patriarchs. They come, in other words, from an 'awakened mind.' To realize what a Master says, one must be one with the awakened mind, or, more simply, one must be awakened. The awakened mind is no other than prajna. A sutra is the full expression of prajna, and, likewise, seeing into a koan is also the full expression of prajna. What then is prajna? The Diamond Sutra says "Arouse the mind without resting it upon anything." This saying helps us to get a handle on the word prajna. which is made up of two parts: 'pra' and 'jna'. 'Pra' means aroused and 'jna' means primordial knowing, or knowing without any content. Another way of saying arouse is 'see into,' and so prajna can mean 'see into knowing without content'. The word prajna consists of a suffix pra and, a root word jna which means primordial knowing. The suffix 'pra,' according to the dictionary means 'fulfilled.' According to Guenther and Chogyam Trungpa, the word 'pra' and the Tibetan word rab, which is used to translate the Sanskrit 'pra,' both also mean 'to heighten' or 'intensify' "Therefore," they say, "shes rab [Tibetan] or prajna [Sanskrit] refers to an intensification of the cognitive processes. The cognitive potentiality that is present in everyone is to be developed, intensified and brought to its highest pitch. To bring this potential to its highest pitch means to release it, to free it from all the extraneous material that has accumulated." The expression 'cognitive processes' is somewhat unfortunate and perhaps abetter word would be knowing. The expression 'cognitive processes' suggests something special, philosophical, abstract; 'knowing' on the other hand is more concrete, immediate. Whereas we are confident everyone knows, we cannot help feelingthat only special people would have 'cognitiveprocesses.' To read the sutras and to work with koans we must arouse the mind without resting it upon anything. A koan is not a nonsense statement designed to throw sand into the intellectual works, nor is it a riddle. A riddle calls for a response at the same level as the question.'Why did the chicken cross the road?' is a riddle. It is not nonsense because an answer can be given. "Because it wanted to get to the other side." But it is not a koan, because the answer does not call for the mind to be aroused without resting upon anything; it does not call for a leap to a new level. ParamitasBefore going on to discuss the sutras, let us, first of all, talk about the paramitas. so that we can understand what is meant by Prajnaparamita. Tradition speaks of six paramitas, the six virtues or requirements for spiritual practice. The word 'paramita' means literally "that which has reached the other shore." Thus, for example, 'Prajnaparamita' would refer to reaching the other shore by way of prajna. The names of the six paramitas are the following. Dána, which means generosity or giving, both in the material and spiritual sense. It implies compassion and the willingness to give of oneself, as well as willingness to give material goods. Shila, which means discipline and the eradication of all passions. The third is kshanti and means patience and tolerance. The fourth, víraya or exertion, refers to a one pointed attitude towards practice. The fifth is dhyána, which can mean meditation, but which can also mean samadhi. And, finally, comes prajna or the attainment of wisdom. What is important from our point of view is that, according to the Prajnaparamita school, while all the virtues are essential for the spiritual life, nevertheless they are all founded upon the virtue of wisdom or prajna. As the Japanese Zen Master Hakuin says, "Observing the precepts, repentance and giving, the countless good deeds, and the way of right living, all come from zazen." True zazen is prajna. As another Zen master says, "The gateway to all mysteries is prajna." The origin of the sutras. It was in this text also that prajna came into its own as the "mother of all Buddhas." In the original eight fold path of the Buddha, which formed a part of the four noble truths of early Buddhism, prajna was not mentioned. The last step of the eight fold path was, dhyana or samadhi. Moving prajna to the centre of the stage was, as we shall see, a major change of direction. One of the revolutions of the Prajnaparamita school was the replacement of the goal of the arhat with the goal of the Bodhisattva. The arhat was one who, through long cycles of existence, had so perfected himself that he was on earth for the last time. At the end of his current life he would reach nirvriti or blessed rest. This is often referred to as "getting off the wheel of birth and death" This was not, the aim of the Bodhisattva of whom, on the contrary, in the Ratnagunasamcayagáthá it is said: Blessed rest, "nirvrti" in Sanskrit, is the Nirvána that excludes the world of suffering. What the new teaching is saying is that salvation is to be found not in escape from, but in the midst of, the difficulties of the world. One is reminded of the koan in which Zen Master Joshu, when still a novice, asks Nansen, "What is the Way?" And Nansen replies, "Everyday mind is the Way." It is this understanding that is so important in the practice of Zen, as we shall see when we come to the Platform sutra and the Vilmalakirti sutras, both of which extol the virtues of ordinary, everyday, mind and therefore of lay practice. In Hakuin's Chant in Praise of Zazen, when he says "true self is no self, our own self is no Self," he is giving the essence of the teaching, a teaching that Buddha summed up in one word, anatman. This same teaching is emphasized several times in The Diamond Sutra when it says, for example, "No Bodhisattva who is a real Bodhisattva cherishes the idea of an ego-entity, a personality, a being, or a separated individual." Furthermore, this new teaching of Prajnaparamita, instead of saying that one should be detached from worldly possessions and ties, said instead that all worldly ties are empty, and nowhere in the five skandhas (we shall come back to these in a moment) is there a place to rest. In other words, no attachment is possible because ultimately no thing exists to which one can be attached. This is anicca, the other basic teaching of Buddha.The sixth patriarch summed this up by saying "From the beginning not a thing is." The ultimate unreality of 'being', whether 'out there' or 'in here,' is emphasized in this sutra when it is said:
|
|
<< back |
printable version |
