Instructions Needed?

According to Martin Schlütter (see: How Zen Became Zen, p. 170) there were only two meditation manuals produced in Song China when Zen was conquering Chinese and eventually East Asian Buddhism. They're written by Changlu Zongze (長蘆宗賾) and Foxing Bencai (佛心本才) both with the title Zuochanyi (坐禪儀). English translations are available from Carl Bielefeldt (Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation) and Thomas Cleary (Minding Mind – A Course in Basic Meditation) respectively. It's more interesting to see that since the advent of Southern Chan there was not a single meditation instruction made within the Zen school. Many think that this is because of the discrepancy between sudden enlightenment and gradual meditation practice. Indeed, the early meditation instructions of the East Mountain school (Daoxin, Hongren, Shenxiu, etc.) were heavily criticised by Shenhui - from whom the whole Northern-Southern idea comes - but that doesn't necessarily entail total silence on meditation, especially as it's been such an everyday matter for monks. Nevertheless, when it comes to meditation instruction the whole is summed up as being aware of the rising and disappearing of thoughts without attachment.

While it is all right to say that gradual techniques are not Zen I think it is a mistake to separate those two texts as meditation instructions but call the many teachings as not instructions. Indeed, a large number of Zen teachings are about enlightening the mind to its nature. That is the whole point of meditation. Everything else are auxiliary methods at best, but generally just distractions. Foxin says,

Nowadays we see students who sit diligently but do not awaken. Their problem derives from their dependence on conceptions, their feelings sticking to bias and falsehood. In their confusion they turn their backs on the true basis and mistakenly go along with quietism or activism. This is why they fail to attain enlightenment.

The extremes of quietism and activism, non-existence and existence, dislike and like are the two common modes of the mind. So the instruction to be aware without relying on anything avoids both mistakes. But one may raise the question: how can we be aware without relying on anything? That's where a long instruction in different meditation practices could follow. Again, that is not the Zen way. Because the mind is originally aware and pure, knowing and empty, there is no need to develop or maintain a special state. That's how "ordinary mind is the way". Of course, buddha-nature and mindfulness meditation are nothing new in Buddhism and they don't necessarily mean this kind of sudden approach, therefore this is, so to say, a Zen speciality where they focus on the essential realisation. (Still, even that may not be new if we think of how the prajnaparamita texts focus on prajnaparamita, which is indeed being aware without attachment.)

In fact, these so called meditation instructions don't say much. If compared to such classics as Zhiyi's Mohezhiguan (摩訶止観), or even the Xiaozhiguan (小止観, in Ven. Dharmamitra's translation: Essentials of Buddhist Meditation), these Zen texts are mere leaflets with minimum information. But that is not because they were afraid or reluctant to speak about methods. Rather, it is that there's nothing more needed than "by seeing nature becoming buddha". But it's possible to have further objections here about how to see nature. In fact, this is the same as asking about unbound awareness.

So we should know that the moon appears when the water is still, the shine is complete when the mirror is clean.

Here Foxin refers to the peaceful mind. Based on the idea that once the mind is calmed one is able to observe it, or when it's silent the nature appears naturally, the practice of calm abiding is advised by many teachers. However, that is falling back to the secondary and getting lost in concepts. Another method is using a phrase from a Zen story, this is the practice with koans. However, it is hardly different from other techniques we find in Buddhism. The direct path of sudden enlightenment is in seeing mind's nature because there is nothing to grasp as mind, thoughts just come and go without interruption. Because all attachment is created by taking thoughts as solid and real, if one just doesn't hold on to them all hindrances are gone. The explanations, teachings, method are only to boost one's faith in letting go, for it rarely happens easily as we're all deeply habituated to hanging on something. That's why even if one has gained some insight it's good for stabilising one's practice only but ingrained mental patterns reappear again and again. However, if one stays with buddha-nature, no matter what comes it can cause no trouble. This is using Zen in everyday life and continuous practice.

Therefore, from a Zen perspective, there is no need for special instructions at all, which explains very well the lack of detailed meditation manuals, even today.

The Zen Joke

The Lotus Sutra is a best-seller in East-Asian Buddhism but if we read it today it isn't very impressive at all. I think there are three main reasons for being so popular in Asia: (1) its magical-devotional value; (2) its rich scenery and large number of parables; (3) the hard work of commentators to bring out a hidden meaning. Not impressive for us because it has little or no magical value for us, can't read it as if it were a novel and it's difficult to make much sense of the whole thing. Same could be said about many other Vaipulya (Mahayana) sutras. Koans are another thing. Originally they're (mostly) fictional stories - perhaps better to call them folk tales - in books about the history/legend of Zen situated mainly in the Tang era (618-907). Such stories were popular not just because they are meant to be expressions of the enlightened state but rather because they're perplexing and funny.

I believe there's lot of entertainment in Buddhism without which it could not have penetrated cultures and societies throughout Asia. It's enough to think of the Jatakas, the primary teachings for lay people, to see my point. Those stories about Gautama's former lives served as an inspiration and source for the emergence of bodhisattvahood as a religious path. But as time goes by the tales of old become legends for the present and they're taken as historical events to serve as examples. Of course, it is a complicated thing for a once nearly heretical idea to turn into orthodoxy and it needs more than a moment of fame. Anyhow, looking at a group of Buddhist teachings as entertainment can be useful in understanding their purpose. It also helps conceiving methods to teach the Dharma today. This is skilful means of course, the secret weapon of buddhas and bodhisattvas to tame beings lost in the fog of delusion.

For instance, a modern version of the Lotus Sutra could be a fantasy novel where the heroes are looking for the Lotus Sutra. I can imagine the Avatamsaka Sutra as a sci-fi series full of spaceships and alien creatures, and Sudhana is the captain leading his men to unknown worlds. The Larger Amita Sutra could be a post-apocalyptic film about Dharmakara - Deekay for friends - saving humanity. The Vimalakirti Sutra might be a sitcom full of witty punch lines. Not to mention Tantric horror and porn movies. Such reproductions of holy scriptures could serve a great purpose in introducing the radically different view of wisdom and compassion. But they must be high quality works for sure, both in content and appearance.

Dharma-Transmission Case Study

It is all right when we find out that things that happened many hundreds of years ago differ from what we thought. But can we be sure about more recent history? People hardly care when they hear the Indian patriarchs of Zen are fiction. They might not care much - or don't know usually - that the whole lineage of Tang dynasty is a fake too. But there's an interesting thing I've thought about a while back but it was only today that I actually looked into. It is the case of Gyeongheo (Kyong-ho), the hero of modern Korean Buddhism.

In recent times, Seon Masters Gyeongheo Seong-u (1846-1912) and Yongseong Chinjong (1864-1940) greatly promoted the Ganhwa Seon style. Gyeongheo succeeded to the Dharma of Seon Master Yong-am Hye-eon. ... Seon Master Yeongseong succeeded to the Dharma lineage of Hwanseong Jian.

(The History and Tradition of Korean Seon)

And the look at this mail written in defence of Samu Sunim's authenticity:

Unlike the Japanese Rinzai Zen tradition, which sometimes boasts of “unbroken transmission,” there are many Korean Seon (Zen) Masters who became enlightened without a teacher. The most famous among them were Gyeongheo (1849-1912) and Seongcheol (1912-1993). Gyeongheo revitalized Korean Seon Buddhism toward the end of the 19th century, while Seongcheol served as the Supreme Ancestor of the Jogye Order from 1981 until he passed away. Yongseong (1864-1940), Samu Sunim’s Grand Master, was another one who attained enlightenment without a teacher.

(Bopkyong, secretary of Buddhist Society for Compassionate Wisdom)

Well, it is not unlike at all when Hakuin's transmission is very much in doubt, to say the least, but that has already been looked into by others. Gyeongheo is a different case. This is from a book published just last year:

Following his spiritual awakening, Kyŏnghŏ went to the Ch’ŏnjang Temple. Here he received dharma-transmission from the Sŏn Master Yŏngun (b. 1783), an eleventh-generation successor in the direct line of Hyujŏng (1520–1604) also known as Great Master Sŏsan. At age thirty-three, Kyŏnghŏ succeeded Yŏngun as spiritual leader (K. pangjang) of the temple.

(Henrik H. Sørensen: Mirror of Emptiness - The Life and Times of the Sŏn Master Kyŏnghŏ Sŏngu; in Makers of Modern Korean Buddhism, SUNY Press, Albany, USA. 2010. p. 133)

Let's think here a bit. Yeongwol Bongyul (영월봉율/永月奉律, 1738-1823; source), that is Yŏngun, was already dead when Gyeongheo was born (1846/1849, date unclear). But OK, the official website says the same, so Sørensen could have been mislead by whatever sources he were using:

In spring of the next year, he moved to Cheonjangam Hermitage in Mt. Yeonamsan, and continued the practice which succeeds enlightenment. He said he was continuing the lineage of Yongam who was a successor of the Cheongheo and Hwanseong.

(Great Seon Masters of Korean History)

It is more interesting that in transmission lineages (see here and here) it is Manhwa Boseon (만화 보선, 萬化普善, d.u.) identified as the preceding 74th patriarch and Yeongwol is the 73rd. Makes more sense, although from the different biographies I've read it appears that Manhwa was only Gyeongheo's ordination master at best. It is even more fascinating what the biography in his collected writings say:

[quoting Gyeongheo:]"Although my enlightenment is not complete and has not been acknowledged by a master, what I have been trying all my life is to firmly establish what the duty of an ascetic is. I am already old and in the future my disciples should transmit the law to Elder Yongam, to establish a clear lineage of the law that I received from my master Manhwa.

[biographer continues:]In obeyance of the master's will, we found the origination of transmission that the preceptor succeeded the law of Yongam and Hye-eon, and it is transmitted from Hye-eon to Geumho and Byeolcheom, from Byeolcheom to Yulbong and Cheonggo, and from Cheonggo to Cheongbong and Geo-ae, and from Geo-ae to Ho-am and Chejeong, and from Cheongheo to Pyeonyang, and from Pyeonyang to Pungdam, from Pungdam to Wondam, and from Wondam to Hwanseong. Thus, Preceptor Gyeongheo is the 12th legitimate disciple of Cheongheo and the 7th legitimate disciple of Hwanseong."

(The Collected Writings of Gyeongheo vol. 2)

The translator looks confused about the names a bit (the "and" between names is unnecessary) but that's a secondary thing. What Gyeongheo explicitly says is that there was nobody who gave him any kind of dharma-transmission. But then in the next paragraph a lineage is established. Note that such a lineage was created by the disciples.

There are two other famous masters mentioned in Bopkyong's letter, although they don't have such flourishing descendants as Gyeongheo. Nevertheless, here are two essays to read about them:

"Bodhidharma said that those who sought Buddhas and patriarchs apart from the mind of sentient beings were “heavenly demons and heretics” (cheonma oedo). . . . There are people who seek Heaven (cheon) apart from mind-nature (simseong) and worship it, and there are those who say that Heaven is creating [something], but they are all deluded."

A Monk of Mukti and Karma: The Life and Thought of Baek Yongseong by Huh Woosung (download file, can be opened by Adobe Reader)

"Venerable Songchul also emphasized the need for this kind of certification by an authentic Master. That is one of the reasons why Venerable Songchul criticized Chinul's Seon. The Jogye Order linage has always been transmitted by formal recognition received from a Seon master. Venerable Songchul insists that Chinul had no such recognition. But there is also no evidence that Songchul had certification by a Seon master."

A Commentary on Venerable Songchul's Method for Seon Practice by Hyewon Kang

The real question is, however, what do we make of it? Certainly I'm not questioning the greatness of the above masters who have played such enormous roles in developing modern Korean Buddhism. The problem is not with them but the way dharma-transmission is understood. Once it was developed by certain Chinese monks to establish their positions in monastic hierarchy. But what use does it have now? It is obviously not a proof of one's enlightenment or anything like that. It doesn't guarantee anything except for a weak basis for religious superiority. Then why are modern Zen people hung up on it so much?

Traditionally Modern

There is Humanistic Buddhism and Engaged Buddhism (virtually the same thing) as modern trends throughout the world. It is about focusing on the larger society and social needs instead of the abstract and religious things. What is not pointed out, not emphasised is a human Buddhism. It exists in everyday reality, in scholarly works and in communities, but without anyone really spelling it out. What do I mean?

People do something because they find some kind of interest in it. That interest can have many forms from material gain to spiritual zeal. The laity supports monks in exchange for merit and some other religious services. In the West such an attitude is almost non-existent. But there is something else, the value of inner peace and wisdom. I don't often hear about people inviting monks to their homes to exorcise bad spirits but rather to lead meditation sessions or give teachings. Even being a monastic is not that important.

This human Buddhism is about the view that Buddhism is something one can experience for himself here and now (sure, this was said by the Buddha too, but it has a somewhat new meaning I think in the modern context) and not restricted to the monasteries or celestial buddhas and bodhisattvas. It is also how the view of Buddha is that he was a normal human being with special mental attributes but not a superhuman or anything close to that. Of course, this is not a movement but rather the way Buddhism got integrated into a Western milieu.

Is this human centred Buddhism a return to the original? Some like to say that referring to the Pali Canon as the authentic source. I rather say it is returning to the original not in a historical but a spiritual sense. What I see in the history of Buddhism is the periodical reforming of the teaching to make it relevant to the people and that makes it a living tradition. Change is inevitable. What is constant is the Dharma, the Truth that all follower can touch directly.