Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!jarthur!nntp-server.caltech.edu!mustang!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: johnw@ready.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Zen and Brahman
Message-ID: <1991May7.015525.20592@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 7 May 91 01:55:25 GMT
References: <1991May6.224737.17589@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: Ready Systems
Lines: 90
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov


In article <1991May6.224737.17589@nas.nasa.gov> japlady@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Rebecca Radnor) writes:
>
>    Regarding Madhyamika and Vedanta (re J, Wheeler); I do agree that there
>are parallels between the two traditions, especially their respective
>emphasis on uprooting erroneous conceptualizations.  Although many
>of the differences are merely semantic I think there are some major
>"disagreements".  As I understand advaita vedanta, one of the basic
>doctrines is that of sat-cit-ananda, or Being, Consciousness, and Bliss;
>these designations describe Brahman (of course we cannot really talk about
>characteristcs of Brahman since Brahman is w/out a second) and imply an
>underlying unchanging Reality covered by the illusory perception of change
>and multiplicity.  This assumption is one that the Madhyamika denies
>totally; in fact there is no Reality in the vedantic sense for the
>Madhyamika....

The position that Buddhism denies an ulitmate reality is not really
supported in the texts I am familiar with. For example, the Ch'an
master Huang Po says:

"This Pure Mind the source of everything shines forever and on all
 with the brilliance of its of its own perfection."

Hui Neng, the sixth patriarch of Ch'an Buddhism, according to the sutra
which bears his name, uttered these words upon attaining enlightment:

"Who would have known that my mind is intrinsically pure?
 Who would have that my mind is forever free from change?
 Who would have known it gives rise to this manifested world?
 Who would have known I would find that the Buddha is the
 light in my own mind?"

Bankei:

"That which is unborn, is the Buddha-mind. The Buddha-mind is unborn
and marvelously illuminating. See this Buddha-mind right within yourself and
from today you'll abide in the Buddha-mind and be a living Buddha forever."

Padma Sambhava:

"All hail to the One Mind that embraces the whole Samsara and Nirvana.
 That eternally is as it is, yet is unknown.
 That, although ever clear and ever existing, is not visible.
 That, although radiant and unobscured, is not recognised...

 The realization of the One Mind constitutes elightenment."

Are not these Buddhists talking about an ulitmate reality?
You will notice some interesting parellels here with Vedanta. First, this 
reality is within us. Second, it is of the nature of consciousness. Thirdly,
it is eternal. Comments?

As a final point, I think the assumption that when Hui Neng said, "Your
own mind is the Buddha," he meant that everyday life is enlightment seems
questionable to me. Zen philosphers may interpret it this way, but if
you refer to the source texts (Chinese) it seems pretty clear that he
probably meant it just like he said it: You are the Buddha. As for
zazen, and such techniques I am sure he would have thoroughly disapproved
of them. He is quite emphatic that Buddhism has nothing to do with
sitting, thought control, breathing or any such practices. Since he
never did these things himself it is not suprising. 

It is an interesting question to ask what relation modern Zen has to
its illustrious predecessor Ch'an. Most people assume they are the
same teaching, but it is fairly clear that they are not. (At least I
think so.) In the sixteenth century (?) when Bankei sought a competent 
master to guide him in his quest for the truth, he says he could find no one
in Japan who could give him the necessary guidance, i.e. there were
no real enlightened masters in the country. Through his own efforts
(and after making a lot of wrong turns) he says he finally awakened to the
"unborn" Buddha-mind. There were of course a lot of monasteries and
roshi's etc., but the flame of the living Dharma had long since
died. Even Zen practioners who later came to him admitted that they
had only the dead words and rituals whereas Bankei was the Buddha
himself! Has the situation improved in modern times? 

Bankei said that the easiest way to become a Buddha was to listen to
the Dharma in his presence. (An interesting parallel with the Indian
tradition of Satsang. Ramana Maharshi is recorded as saying: If the
company of an enlightened sage is obtained, of what use are the
various forms of discipline? Of what use is a fan when the cool
southern breeze is blowing?)

I always feel a twinge when I hear how long some people have been
going at the practice of zazen. Since neither the Buddha (as far as I can tell),
Hui Neng, Huang Po, Bankei, Raman Maharshi, nor any enlightened
sage I am aware of practiced zazen, I always wonder what it is practitioners
are trying to attain by it?  
 
johnw