Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
(1) Thus have I heard. One morning, when the Buddha was staying near Shravasti in the jeta grove of Anathapindika's estate, He and His company of twelve hundred and fifty monks went into the city to beg for their breakfast; and after they returned and finished their meal, they put away their robes and bowls and washed their feet. Then the Buddha took His seat and the others sat down before Him.
(2) From the midst of this assembly rose the Venerable Subhuti. He bared his right shoulder, knelt upon his right knee, and, pressing his palms together, bowed to the Buddha. "Lord," he said, "Tathagata! World Honored One! How wonderful it is that by Thy mercy we are protected and Instructed! Lord, when men and women announce that they desire to follow the Bodhisattva Path and ask us how they should proceed, what should we tell them?"
(3) "Good Subhuti," answered the Buddha, "whenever someone announces, 'I want to follow the Bodhisattva Path because I want to save all sentient beings; and it does not matter whether they are creatures which are formed in a womb or hatched from an egg; whether their life cycles are as observable as those of garden worms, insects and butterflies; or whether they appear as miraculously as mushrooms or gods; or whether they are capable of profound thoughts or of no thoughts at all, for I vow to lead every individual being to Nirvana; and not until they are all safely there will I reap my reward and enter Nirvana!' then, Subhuti, you should remind such a vow-taker that even if such uncountable numbers of beings were so liberated, in reality no beings would have been liberated. A Bodhisattva does not cling to the illusion of separate individuality or ego-entity or personal identification. In reality, there is no "I" who liberates and no "they" who are liberated.
(4) "Furthermore, Subhuti, a Bodhisattva should be detached from all desires, whether they be for the sight or sound, the smell, the touch or taste of something, or whether they be for leading multitudes to enlightenment...
I wonder, is life not both a trap and a door to enlightenment? Birth in any of the realms of existence is certainly a trap, a trap that is also known as Mara's snare. And yet, it is just within this fathom-long body with its perception and intellect, that the Buddha declared that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos.
I wonder, is life not both a trap and a door to enlightenment? Birth in any of the realms of existence is certainly a trap, a trap that is also known as Mara's snare. And yet, it is just within this fathom-long body with its perception and intellect, that the Buddha declared that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos.
Jason
Good point. The nub of this question is not whether or not one is 'saving' sentient beings. It's on that score that simplistic assesments of the Theravada tradition often fall down for example, when it's said that the Theravada is a Hinayana or lesser vehicle, concerned only with personal suffering. The point as I see it is that if there's real insight then compassion is the natural manifestation of that, and in compassion, there is no sense of self and other, no 'idea' of there being others to save or one who does the saving, whatever the tradition. Nobody can enlighten others and we have what is needed to wake up "within this fathom-long body." It's about pointing the focus away from self, and not towards others necessarily, but to something that is beyond self and other, beyond any idea of gain or loss. The Bodhisattva has no idea of being a Bodhisattva and thus is a Bodhisattva, to paraphrase the Diamon Sutra again.
Thank you so much for the above post, Genryu. The part of the Diamond Sutra you quoted had me wondering about all the focus on bodhicitta and bodhisattvas in Vajrayana Buddhism. I was feeling unsure of why so much stress was placed on the bodhisattva vows if the Buddha said:
"...you should remind such a vow-taker that even if such uncountable numbers of beings were so liberated, in reality no beings would have been liberated. A Bodhisattva does not cling to the illusion of separate individuality or ego-entity or personal identification. In reality, there is no "I" who liberates and no "they" who are liberated."
This clears up my confusion so well:
"The point as I see it is that if there's real insight then compassion is the natural manifestation of that, and in compassion, there is no sense of self and other, no 'idea' of there being others to save or one who does the saving, whatever the tradition."
And:
"It's about pointing the focus away from self, and not towards others necessarily, but to something that is beyond self and other, beyond any idea of gain or loss."
I couldn't have asked for a clearer explanation. And I was about to...but you knew that already, didn't you Genryu? I had two nagging feelings all night tonight. One was the definition of the Dharma and the other was this question. And you came through in both cases. You're my hero. :buck: Now I can get some sleep! LOL!
(1) Thus have I heard. One morning, when the Buddha was staying near Shravasti in the jeta grove of Anathapindika's estate, He and His company of twelve hundred and fifty monks went into the city to beg for their breakfast; and after they returned and finished their meal, they put away their robes and bowls and washed their feet. Then the Buddha took His seat and the others sat down before Him.
(2) From the midst of this assembly rose the Venerable Subhuti. He bared his right shoulder, knelt upon his right knee, and, pressing his palms together, bowed to the Buddha. "Lord," he said, "Tathagata! World Honored One! How wonderful it is that by Thy mercy we are protected and Instructed! Lord, when men and women announce that they desire to follow the Bodhisattva Path and ask us how they should proceed, what should we tell them?"
(3) "Good Subhuti," answered the Buddha, "whenever someone announces, 'I want to follow the Bodhisattva Path because I want to save all sentient beings; and it does not matter whether they are creatures which are formed in a womb or hatched from an egg; whether their life cycles are as observable as those of garden worms, insects and butterflies; or whether they appear as miraculously as mushrooms or gods; or whether they are capable of profound thoughts or of no thoughts at all, for I vow to lead every individual being to Nirvana; and not until they are all safely there will I reap my reward and enter Nirvana!' then, Subhuti, you should remind such a vow-taker that even if such uncountable numbers of beings were so liberated, in reality no beings would have been liberated. A Bodhisattva does not cling to the illusion of separate individuality or ego-entity or personal identification. In reality, there is no "I" who liberates and no "they" who are liberated.
(4) "Furthermore, Subhuti, a Bodhisattva should be detached from all desires, whether they be for the sight or sound, the smell, the touch or taste of something, or whether they be for leading multitudes to enlightenment...
- The Diamond Sutra
Actually, ZM, that does not differ in the least from what I said. Think about it!
Ah but that's just it. It's not something intellectual. No idea in mind simply means no idea in mind. It's not something to think about - the Bodhisattva Vows, if one thinks about them are ludicrous and impossible. Something more than the thinking mind is needed.
Actually I think it's you who are getting hung up on the words, dear ZM. I never said it was an intellectual undertaking at all. What I've said all along is that you have to do the path, not just think about it.
Actually I think it's you who are getting hung up on the words, dear ZM. I never said it was an intellectual undertaking at all. What I've said all along is that you have to do the path, not just think about it.
While I agree that life has no meaning in an absolute, dualistic sense, I would say that there is meaning to life, and that is to help others, to practice compassion and to achieve enlightenment so that you and you alone can lead all sentient beings to liberation.
Is what I was addressing specifically. There is no meaning because meaning is a purely intellectual term, life has no meaning. Life is just life, reality just reality. Nothing extra. Relative or Absolute is no different. As long as we think that the relative and absolute are different, we haven't yet stopped ignoring reality. Reality does not stand for something else, symbolize something else or point to something else. There is no meaning whatsoever. None, nada.
And there are no others to save simply because there are no others, and no enlightenment of oneself separate from others - it would be a contradiction in terms. As a provisional understanding, yes those ideas may have a use, but if one truly takes the Bodhisattva vows then one's understanding should be more than provisional. It should manifest in how one opens a door, how one walks, in how a person sits and stands. We do these vows even though they have no meaning and are impossible, in fact because they have no meaning and are impossible. Doing things 'in order to' achieve this or that, or even because they are possible is nothing to do with practice.
Discussion with Suzuki Roshi From Branching Streams Flow in the Darkness, a collection of Suzuki Roshi's lectures on the Sandokai, co-edited by Sojun Roshi.
Student: In light of what you said earlier, I don't understand the vows. If there are no sentient beings why do we vow to save them? It sounds like a big joke.
Suzuki Roshi: That is because your practice is always confined within the realm of "Why do we practice zazen? What does it mean?" Actually, your practice is very good. Why is your practice so good? I don't understand. [Laughs.]
Student: It doesn't feel good to me.
Suzuki Roshi: Anyway, you are doing well. My lecture may be some enticement. [Laughs.] It may be better for you not to listen to my talks. Just practice zazen.
Student: I don't mind zazen so much, but I don't like to make promises I don't understand.
Suzuki Roshi: If sentient beings are numberless, or desires are inexhaustible, you cannot say, "I vow to save them." Our promise is very silly. It doesn't make any sense. I agree with you. But still we do it. Why? Because we don't feel so good if we don't work for others. We take the four vows, but what we mean is more than that. For the sake of convenience, we say just the four. But I really, truly feel lucky that we have inexhaustible desires and numberless sentient beings to save, and also that it is impossible to save each one of them in terms of "I save you." You cannot save in that way. Whether it is possible or not, whether it is the Buddhist or bodhisattva or Hinayana or Mahayana way, is not the question. Anyhow, do it! That is our vow.
Student: When I promise to do something, it has to have some meaning. If it doesn't have some meaning, I can't say it.
Suzuki Roshi: That is your arrogance.
Student: I don't know, maybe, but--
Suzuki Roshi: You are crying. Even though you are crying, that crying doesn't make any sense. Your effort is still based on some selfish practice. You don't give yourself up. You have to suffer and fight more with yourself. There is no one to fight with, and nothing to fight with. Fight with your selfish practice until you give up. That is the most important point for real students. They shouldn't fool themselves. They don't want to be fooled by our teaching, or by Zen, or by anything. That is right. They shouldn't be fooled by anything.
Student: Well what will I do at the end of talks, when we chant the four vows? Everyone will chant the four vows, and I won't believe them.
Suzuki Roshi: You don't have to believe in them literally. Because various teachers and numerous people recite them, you should do it. If they are cheating themselves, you, too, should be cheated; you should be fooled along with all sentient beings. That you cannot do it means that you want to be a special person. That is good. That much spirit we should have; but that is not our way. My answer is very cold. I cannot be sympathetic with your practice. Maybe some great teacher will give you some candy. Go and get it.
Student: It's not like that, Roshi. Maybe part of it is, but I still don't understand. I don't feel right. Even if the whole world is fooled, if there is something I don't believe in, or I don't understand--
Suzuki Roshi: You don't understand. You see various colors, but how many colors do you see with your eyes? How much sound can you hear? How much can you understand with your small mind? You should know the limit of your thinking mind. Your thinking mind only works dualistically. You have no words to explain this kind of reality. It is almost impossible to understand our teaching through words. But because you stick to my words, or to scriptures, you think the scriptures should be perfect, should be more convincing. You think in that way, but I must confess that what I say is not always right, not always true. I am suggesting something more than that. Not only Buddha, but Confucius also said, "If someone wants to fool you, you should be fooled by them." This is very important.
Student: Even though practice is greater than words, still in the small world of words I don't feel strong enough yet to be inconsistent. If I say to you, "I don't see that lamp, Roshi," then something funny happens inside of me, and sometimes that funny feeling happens inside of me when I say the vows. I think, "Okay, I vow to save all sentient beings," but then something is going on inside that doesn't--
Suzuki Roshi: Yes, I understand that. You know, we priests always put our palms together and bow when we meet. How many times have you put your hands together at Tassajara? When I was young I didn't like it at all. I felt as if I was fooling myself, and I didn't feel so good. But as I had to do it, I did it, that's all. But now I understand, because I understand how foolish I am. I don't have as much spirit as I had before. Truth is truth, and I can't agree with you now. Maybe if I were your age I could agree with you quite easily and we would be great friends, but now I am not your friend...
Student: Roshi, I may put my hands together in gassho and someone may look at me and say, "Oh, that is good gassho," but there maybe a cold heart behind it.
Suzuki Roshi: Cold heart or warm heart is not the question.
Well, I think we have run head-on into a fundamental difference in view between Vajrayana and Zen. Zen, like Dzogchen, focuses on direct experience of one's true nature, while Tantra takes the view of starting where we're at (i.e. on the dualistic, relative level where sentient beings exist) and working with that. That's why there are these vows and so forth. Without them, people would have nothing, and telling them that there is no meaning to life gives rise to nihilism, one of the two heresies that the Buddha warned against (the other is eternalism, the belief in permance and an unchanging soul). With a nihilistic view, a person believes that since there is no meaning, you can get away with anything, or conversely, since there is no point in living, why not commit suicide? In other words, one fails to believe in the law of cause and effect. So it is important to have vows to prevent people from falling into wrong view.
As it says in one of our confessional practices:
In the view I confess all committments broken through mental activity.
Knowing the view is the all-pervasive foundational Bodhicitta,
Realizing that the view exists in non-existence,
And practicing meditation that is non-existent,
Realizing that activity is neither existent nor non-existent,
The Bodihicitta is without expectation or disappointment.
All root and auxiliary commitments,
Breaches and failure to uphold them are unborn, ungenerated,
And liberated in the indivisibility of the object to confess and the confession itself.
Palzang
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited March 2006
As one who is not a student of any specific School of Thought or Buddhist discipline, I see both logic and clarity in the posts submitted by both you, Palzang, and by ZenMonk... they are both informative and interesting, but I'm having difficulty discerning what it is you both agree on, and where you acutely differ....
Is this a bad thing?
Maybe this is the reason I find it so difficult to decide in which 'School' to ennrol....!
I don't think it's about one side being right or wrong. Just different ways of looking at things. I love Zen, but my path is Vajrayana. That's just karma. Nothing at all to do with which one I think is the "true" path as I think they're both equally "true".
Well, I think we have run head-on into a fundamental difference in view between Vajrayana and Zen. Zen, like Dzogchen, focuses on direct experience of one's true nature, while Tantra takes the view of starting where we're at (i.e. on the dualistic, relative level where sentient beings exist) and working with that. That's why there are these vows and so forth. Without them, people would have nothing, and telling them that there is no meaning to life gives rise to nihilism, one of the two heresies that the Buddha warned against (the other is eternalism, the belief in permance and an unchanging soul). With a nihilistic view, a person believes that since there is no meaning, you can get away with anything, or conversely, since there is no point in living, why not commit suicide? In other words, one fails to believe in the law of cause and effect. So it is important to have vows to prevent people from falling into wrong view.
As it says in one of our confessional practices:
In the view I confess all committments broken through mental activity.
Knowing the view is the all-pervasive foundational Bodhicitta,
Realizing that the view exists in non-existence,
And practicing meditation that is non-existent,
Realizing that activity is neither existent nor non-existent,
The Bodihicitta is without expectation or disappointment.
All root and auxiliary commitments,
Breaches and failure to uphold them are unborn, ungenerated,
And liberated in the indivisibility of the object to confess and the confession itself.
Palzang
I think you've misunderstood correct view as something intellectual, or something interpreted differently by different traditions. Simply put, it's not, as it's not an intellectual view. The last verse by the way is the core of what I've been pointing to.
practicing meditation that is non-existent,
Realizing that activity is neither existent nor non-existent,
The Bodihicitta is without expectation or disappointment.
As any Vajrayana teacher will make clear, that there is no real difference between the view of Zen and Vajrayana, because correct view - seeing things as they are - without intellectualising them or trying to impose a non existent pattern on reality as in looking for meaning that isn't there, is about direct experience of reality, whatever tradition one's in. And that reality has nothing to do with whether we take vows, believe in it, or think it has a particular meaning. Reality simply is. As Buddhist pianist once played a piece and a member of the audience asked what the piece "meant". The pianist played it again. That's reality. Not some abstract meaning, not some pattern or attribute that we think it has, but the thing in itself. Where we are is irrelevant - reality is reality, always. It is not dependant, conditional or produced. Understanding that is very much correct view, no matter what one's tradition. It's at the core of the Dharma.
Wrong view is also nothing to do with taking or not taking vows - that's a rehash of the doctrine of original sin - that people's true nature is inherently sinful and that they need to have some sort of set of imposed guidelines in order not to stray. It's often a difficult idea to rid oneself of as a western Buddhist but nonetheless it needs doing. The Dharma has no time for such a view of human nature - it's damaging and inaccurate. The precepts and vows are not commandments, neither are they moral injunctions - they're reflections of what it is to act in accord with reality.
This is not however saying, as seems to have been misunderstood here, that one doesn't take the vows, nor that someone is nihilistic because they see things as they are and therefore has no need to look for meaning or a pattern in reality - and thus is somehow amoral, or more particularly - immoral. What it is saying, and this point is what all Buddhist traditions point to, is that there is no pattern to reality, no sign, meaning or characteristic that we can attribute to it. This is why it is so often spoken of as "not this, not that", Sunyata, signless or the Unconditioned and that Unconditioned isn't somewhere else, waiting for us to experience it. It's not some 'thing' that we can't see now because we're somehow not worth or haven't practiced enough or whatever our particular notion is. It's whta is, that's all - simply what's real. Admittedly, this may seem academic, but as direct experience it's not. Reality is not a product, something that we experience as a result of practice, of being moral, taking vows or whatever else we might think. It is not, as the Buddha was careful to make clear, produced, not conditional, not dependant on anything.
The vows are impossible yet we take them because they are the direct manifestation of our lives as Sunyata, as the unconditioned. There is no reality out there that we are searching for, no sentient beings to save, and none to save them, whether we're Zen, Vajrayana or not a Buddhist of any sort, and this is not abstract - some strange idea that we have to wrap our intellects around or can attribute to someone's personal opinion but simply how things are. You can prove it beyond any doubt in seconds. If you look within right now - you will find no-one to do any saving, you will find no meaning because meaning is a pattern that is imposed from outside. You will find no wayward thing that has to take vows in order to experience reality. That's the point, that's the essence, and that is what all the teachings, all the vows, all the traditions point to. If we miss the direct experience of the selflessness of all things, then perversely far from liberating anyone, the vows become mere parrotting.
However, with openess to that direct experience, which is what these vows are truly about, then the vows are fully taken - understanding in our bones that there is no self here to do the saving and no others to save, we are liberated from self clinging. Thus we are free to respond directly in harmony with things as they are - and that is the true meaning of the vows, of compassion and of Buddhist morality. They're not something imposed from outside to which we must conform for fear of developing wrong view, but instead the only way to act and respond if we see things as they are. A person who is awake doesn't act compassionately because he or she has taken a vow, nor because they think they should, nor even to help others, they act out of the direct experience of reality, they act with reality, not against it. They have no need for any 'because' or 'in order to'. As another core text puts it, so that this can be seen clearly as not something that differs between Zen and Vajrayana, that is common to both Vajrayana and Zen - the Heart Sutra:
The Bodhisattva of compassion
When he meditated deeply
Saw the emptiness of all five skandhas
And sundered the bonds that caused him suffering.
Hear then!
Form is no other than emptiness
Emptiness no other than form.
Form is only emptiness
Emptiness only form
Feeling thought and choice
Consciousness itself
Are the same as this.
All things are the primal void
Which is not born or destroyed
Nor is it stained or pure,
Nor does it wax or wane.
So in emptiness, no form
No feeling, thought or choice
Nor is there consciousness
No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind;
No colour, sound, smell, taste, touch
Or what the mind takes hold of
Nor even act of sensing
No ignorance or end of it
Nor all that comes of ignorance:
No withering, no death,
No end of them.
Nor is there pain or cause of pain
Or cease in pain, or noble path
To lead from pain,
Not even wisdom to attain!
Attainment to is emptiness.
So know that the Bodhisattva
Holding to nothing whatever
But dwelling in Prajna wisdom
Is freed of delusive hindrance
Rid of the fear bred by it
And reaches clearest Nirvana
All Buddhas of past and present
Buddhas of future time
Using this Prajna wisdom
Come to full and perfect vision
Hear then the great dharani
The radiant peerless mantra
The Prajna paramita
Whose words allay all pain;
Hear and understand its truth!
Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I don't think it's about one side being right or wrong. Just different ways of looking at things. I love Zen, but my path is Vajrayana. That's just karma. Nothing at all to do with which one I think is the "true" path as I think they're both equally "true".
Palzang
THis is why I was so careful to word my post Mindfully.... I was careful to never suggest that either of you were 'right' or 'wrong'..... nor was I attempting to imply that one was true or the other untrue...I'm just not able to discriminate between what both of you are trying to convey, and what the subtle differences are.
This is why "page-long" discussions are often difficult for others to folow... because sometimes, within all the clever and articulate expression, it becomes difficult to see where the views diverge, how they diverge and what in fact they are intending to convet.
And how has all of this got anything to do with Love and Marriage?
Actually I recently realized one of my problems... I shall cut it short, I realized 3 problems with me in my relationship:
-Jealousy
-Fear
-Paranoia
And the reason... ATTACHMENT! Well at least now I'm aware of it, and I'm cheerful that I found the problem that has led to some unhappy moments for me and my partner...
So... How do I start killing it (the attachment)? We're perfectly fine and happy with our relationship, just that sometimes I'd just suffer because of these untrue poisons... (I never thought I would be attached to anything ever since I started Buddhism.) :rockon:
Comments
Not a trap, but the door to enlightenment.
Palzang
(2) From the midst of this assembly rose the Venerable Subhuti. He bared his right shoulder, knelt upon his right knee, and, pressing his palms together, bowed to the Buddha. "Lord," he said, "Tathagata! World Honored One! How wonderful it is that by Thy mercy we are protected and Instructed! Lord, when men and women announce that they desire to follow the Bodhisattva Path and ask us how they should proceed, what should we tell them?"
(3) "Good Subhuti," answered the Buddha, "whenever someone announces, 'I want to follow the Bodhisattva Path because I want to save all sentient beings; and it does not matter whether they are creatures which are formed in a womb or hatched from an egg; whether their life cycles are as observable as those of garden worms, insects and butterflies; or whether they appear as miraculously as mushrooms or gods; or whether they are capable of profound thoughts or of no thoughts at all, for I vow to lead every individual being to Nirvana; and not until they are all safely there will I reap my reward and enter Nirvana!' then, Subhuti, you should remind such a vow-taker that even if such uncountable numbers of beings were so liberated, in reality no beings would have been liberated. A Bodhisattva does not cling to the illusion of separate individuality or ego-entity or personal identification. In reality, there is no "I" who liberates and no "they" who are liberated.
(4) "Furthermore, Subhuti, a Bodhisattva should be detached from all desires, whether they be for the sight or sound, the smell, the touch or taste of something, or whether they be for leading multitudes to enlightenment...
- The Diamond Sutra
I wonder, is life not both a trap and a door to enlightenment? Birth in any of the realms of existence is certainly a trap, a trap that is also known as Mara's snare. And yet, it is just within this fathom-long body with its perception and intellect, that the Buddha declared that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos.
Jason
Good point. The nub of this question is not whether or not one is 'saving' sentient beings. It's on that score that simplistic assesments of the Theravada tradition often fall down for example, when it's said that the Theravada is a Hinayana or lesser vehicle, concerned only with personal suffering. The point as I see it is that if there's real insight then compassion is the natural manifestation of that, and in compassion, there is no sense of self and other, no 'idea' of there being others to save or one who does the saving, whatever the tradition. Nobody can enlighten others and we have what is needed to wake up "within this fathom-long body." It's about pointing the focus away from self, and not towards others necessarily, but to something that is beyond self and other, beyond any idea of gain or loss. The Bodhisattva has no idea of being a Bodhisattva and thus is a Bodhisattva, to paraphrase the Diamon Sutra again.
Thank you so much for the above post, Genryu. The part of the Diamond Sutra you quoted had me wondering about all the focus on bodhicitta and bodhisattvas in Vajrayana Buddhism. I was feeling unsure of why so much stress was placed on the bodhisattva vows if the Buddha said: This clears up my confusion so well: And:
I couldn't have asked for a clearer explanation. And I was about to...but you knew that already, didn't you Genryu? I had two nagging feelings all night tonight. One was the definition of the Dharma and the other was this question. And you came through in both cases. You're my hero. :buck: Now I can get some sleep! LOL!
Brigid
Actually, ZM, that does not differ in the least from what I said. Think about it!
Palzang
Palzang
Is what I was addressing specifically. There is no meaning because meaning is a purely intellectual term, life has no meaning. Life is just life, reality just reality. Nothing extra. Relative or Absolute is no different. As long as we think that the relative and absolute are different, we haven't yet stopped ignoring reality. Reality does not stand for something else, symbolize something else or point to something else. There is no meaning whatsoever. None, nada.
And there are no others to save simply because there are no others, and no enlightenment of oneself separate from others - it would be a contradiction in terms. As a provisional understanding, yes those ideas may have a use, but if one truly takes the Bodhisattva vows then one's understanding should be more than provisional. It should manifest in how one opens a door, how one walks, in how a person sits and stands. We do these vows even though they have no meaning and are impossible, in fact because they have no meaning and are impossible. Doing things 'in order to' achieve this or that, or even because they are possible is nothing to do with practice.
Discussion with Suzuki Roshi From Branching Streams Flow in the Darkness, a collection of Suzuki Roshi's lectures on the Sandokai, co-edited by Sojun Roshi.
Student: In light of what you said earlier, I don't understand the vows. If there are no sentient beings why do we vow to save them? It sounds like a big joke.
Suzuki Roshi: That is because your practice is always confined within the realm of "Why do we practice zazen? What does it mean?" Actually, your practice is very good. Why is your practice so good? I don't understand. [Laughs.]
Student: It doesn't feel good to me.
Suzuki Roshi: Anyway, you are doing well. My lecture may be some enticement. [Laughs.] It may be better for you not to listen to my talks. Just practice zazen.
Student: I don't mind zazen so much, but I don't like to make promises I don't understand.
Suzuki Roshi: If sentient beings are numberless, or desires are inexhaustible, you cannot say, "I vow to save them." Our promise is very silly. It doesn't make any sense. I agree with you. But still we do it. Why? Because we don't feel so good if we don't work for others. We take the four vows, but what we mean is more than that. For the sake of convenience, we say just the four. But I really, truly feel lucky that we have inexhaustible desires and numberless sentient beings to save, and also that it is impossible to save each one of them in terms of "I save you." You cannot save in that way. Whether it is possible or not, whether it is the Buddhist or bodhisattva or Hinayana or Mahayana way, is not the question. Anyhow, do it! That is our vow.
Student: When I promise to do something, it has to have some meaning. If it doesn't have some meaning, I can't say it.
Suzuki Roshi: That is your arrogance.
Student: I don't know, maybe, but--
Suzuki Roshi: You are crying. Even though you are crying, that crying doesn't make any sense. Your effort is still based on some selfish practice. You don't give yourself up. You have to suffer and fight more with yourself. There is no one to fight with, and nothing to fight with. Fight with your selfish practice until you give up. That is the most important point for real students. They shouldn't fool themselves. They don't want to be fooled by our teaching, or by Zen, or by anything. That is right. They shouldn't be fooled by anything.
Student: Well what will I do at the end of talks, when we chant the four vows? Everyone will chant the four vows, and I won't believe them.
Suzuki Roshi: You don't have to believe in them literally. Because various teachers and numerous people recite them, you should do it. If they are cheating themselves, you, too, should be cheated; you should be fooled along with all sentient beings. That you cannot do it means that you want to be a special person. That is good. That much spirit we should have; but that is not our way. My answer is very cold. I cannot be sympathetic with your practice. Maybe some great teacher will give you some candy. Go and get it.
Student: It's not like that, Roshi. Maybe part of it is, but I still don't understand. I don't feel right. Even if the whole world is fooled, if there is something I don't believe in, or I don't understand--
Suzuki Roshi: You don't understand. You see various colors, but how many colors do you see with your eyes? How much sound can you hear? How much can you understand with your small mind? You should know the limit of your thinking mind. Your thinking mind only works dualistically. You have no words to explain this kind of reality. It is almost impossible to understand our teaching through words. But because you stick to my words, or to scriptures, you think the scriptures should be perfect, should be more convincing. You think in that way, but I must confess that what I say is not always right, not always true. I am suggesting something more than that. Not only Buddha, but Confucius also said, "If someone wants to fool you, you should be fooled by them." This is very important.
Student: Even though practice is greater than words, still in the small world of words I don't feel strong enough yet to be inconsistent. If I say to you, "I don't see that lamp, Roshi," then something funny happens inside of me, and sometimes that funny feeling happens inside of me when I say the vows. I think, "Okay, I vow to save all sentient beings," but then something is going on inside that doesn't--
Suzuki Roshi: Yes, I understand that. You know, we priests always put our palms together and bow when we meet. How many times have you put your hands together at Tassajara? When I was young I didn't like it at all. I felt as if I was fooling myself, and I didn't feel so good. But as I had to do it, I did it, that's all. But now I understand, because I understand how foolish I am. I don't have as much spirit as I had before. Truth is truth, and I can't agree with you now. Maybe if I were your age I could agree with you quite easily and we would be great friends, but now I am not your friend...
Student: Roshi, I may put my hands together in gassho and someone may look at me and say, "Oh, that is good gassho," but there maybe a cold heart behind it.
Suzuki Roshi: Cold heart or warm heart is not the question.
Student: Is it still good gassho?
Suzuki Roshi: Perfect!
As it says in one of our confessional practices:
In the view I confess all committments broken through mental activity.
Knowing the view is the all-pervasive foundational Bodhicitta,
Realizing that the view exists in non-existence,
And practicing meditation that is non-existent,
Realizing that activity is neither existent nor non-existent,
The Bodihicitta is without expectation or disappointment.
All root and auxiliary commitments,
Breaches and failure to uphold them are unborn, ungenerated,
And liberated in the indivisibility of the object to confess and the confession itself.
Palzang
Is this a bad thing?
Maybe this is the reason I find it so difficult to decide in which 'School' to ennrol....!
Palzang
I think you've misunderstood correct view as something intellectual, or something interpreted differently by different traditions. Simply put, it's not, as it's not an intellectual view. The last verse by the way is the core of what I've been pointing to.
practicing meditation that is non-existent,
Realizing that activity is neither existent nor non-existent,
The Bodihicitta is without expectation or disappointment.
As any Vajrayana teacher will make clear, that there is no real difference between the view of Zen and Vajrayana, because correct view - seeing things as they are - without intellectualising them or trying to impose a non existent pattern on reality as in looking for meaning that isn't there, is about direct experience of reality, whatever tradition one's in. And that reality has nothing to do with whether we take vows, believe in it, or think it has a particular meaning. Reality simply is. As Buddhist pianist once played a piece and a member of the audience asked what the piece "meant". The pianist played it again. That's reality. Not some abstract meaning, not some pattern or attribute that we think it has, but the thing in itself. Where we are is irrelevant - reality is reality, always. It is not dependant, conditional or produced. Understanding that is very much correct view, no matter what one's tradition. It's at the core of the Dharma.
Wrong view is also nothing to do with taking or not taking vows - that's a rehash of the doctrine of original sin - that people's true nature is inherently sinful and that they need to have some sort of set of imposed guidelines in order not to stray. It's often a difficult idea to rid oneself of as a western Buddhist but nonetheless it needs doing. The Dharma has no time for such a view of human nature - it's damaging and inaccurate. The precepts and vows are not commandments, neither are they moral injunctions - they're reflections of what it is to act in accord with reality.
This is not however saying, as seems to have been misunderstood here, that one doesn't take the vows, nor that someone is nihilistic because they see things as they are and therefore has no need to look for meaning or a pattern in reality - and thus is somehow amoral, or more particularly - immoral. What it is saying, and this point is what all Buddhist traditions point to, is that there is no pattern to reality, no sign, meaning or characteristic that we can attribute to it. This is why it is so often spoken of as "not this, not that", Sunyata, signless or the Unconditioned and that Unconditioned isn't somewhere else, waiting for us to experience it. It's not some 'thing' that we can't see now because we're somehow not worth or haven't practiced enough or whatever our particular notion is. It's whta is, that's all - simply what's real. Admittedly, this may seem academic, but as direct experience it's not. Reality is not a product, something that we experience as a result of practice, of being moral, taking vows or whatever else we might think. It is not, as the Buddha was careful to make clear, produced, not conditional, not dependant on anything.
The vows are impossible yet we take them because they are the direct manifestation of our lives as Sunyata, as the unconditioned. There is no reality out there that we are searching for, no sentient beings to save, and none to save them, whether we're Zen, Vajrayana or not a Buddhist of any sort, and this is not abstract - some strange idea that we have to wrap our intellects around or can attribute to someone's personal opinion but simply how things are. You can prove it beyond any doubt in seconds. If you look within right now - you will find no-one to do any saving, you will find no meaning because meaning is a pattern that is imposed from outside. You will find no wayward thing that has to take vows in order to experience reality. That's the point, that's the essence, and that is what all the teachings, all the vows, all the traditions point to. If we miss the direct experience of the selflessness of all things, then perversely far from liberating anyone, the vows become mere parrotting.
However, with openess to that direct experience, which is what these vows are truly about, then the vows are fully taken - understanding in our bones that there is no self here to do the saving and no others to save, we are liberated from self clinging. Thus we are free to respond directly in harmony with things as they are - and that is the true meaning of the vows, of compassion and of Buddhist morality. They're not something imposed from outside to which we must conform for fear of developing wrong view, but instead the only way to act and respond if we see things as they are. A person who is awake doesn't act compassionately because he or she has taken a vow, nor because they think they should, nor even to help others, they act out of the direct experience of reality, they act with reality, not against it. They have no need for any 'because' or 'in order to'. As another core text puts it, so that this can be seen clearly as not something that differs between Zen and Vajrayana, that is common to both Vajrayana and Zen - the Heart Sutra:
The Bodhisattva of compassion
When he meditated deeply
Saw the emptiness of all five skandhas
And sundered the bonds that caused him suffering.
Hear then!
Form is no other than emptiness
Emptiness no other than form.
Form is only emptiness
Emptiness only form
Feeling thought and choice
Consciousness itself
Are the same as this.
All things are the primal void
Which is not born or destroyed
Nor is it stained or pure,
Nor does it wax or wane.
So in emptiness, no form
No feeling, thought or choice
Nor is there consciousness
No eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind;
No colour, sound, smell, taste, touch
Or what the mind takes hold of
Nor even act of sensing
No ignorance or end of it
Nor all that comes of ignorance:
No withering, no death,
No end of them.
Nor is there pain or cause of pain
Or cease in pain, or noble path
To lead from pain,
Not even wisdom to attain!
Attainment to is emptiness.
So know that the Bodhisattva
Holding to nothing whatever
But dwelling in Prajna wisdom
Is freed of delusive hindrance
Rid of the fear bred by it
And reaches clearest Nirvana
All Buddhas of past and present
Buddhas of future time
Using this Prajna wisdom
Come to full and perfect vision
Hear then the great dharani
The radiant peerless mantra
The Prajna paramita
Whose words allay all pain;
Hear and understand its truth!
Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Svaha
THis is why I was so careful to word my post Mindfully.... I was careful to never suggest that either of you were 'right' or 'wrong'..... nor was I attempting to imply that one was true or the other untrue...I'm just not able to discriminate between what both of you are trying to convey, and what the subtle differences are.
This is why "page-long" discussions are often difficult for others to folow... because sometimes, within all the clever and articulate expression, it becomes difficult to see where the views diverge, how they diverge and what in fact they are intending to convet.
And how has all of this got anything to do with Love and Marriage?
-Jealousy
-Fear
-Paranoia
And the reason... ATTACHMENT! Well at least now I'm aware of it, and I'm cheerful that I found the problem that has led to some unhappy moments for me and my partner...
So... How do I start killing it (the attachment)? We're perfectly fine and happy with our relationship, just that sometimes I'd just suffer because of these untrue poisons... (I never thought I would be attached to anything ever since I started Buddhism.) :rockon: