Linjis teachings overlooked

[pueraeternus]

I wonder if we can pinpoint more or less when in Buddhism does the primacy of the guru comes into play? Would that be the early stages of esoteric or vajrayana Buddhism?

I suspect that towards the end of the Gupta (550) and the rise of Indian feudalism thereafter we can identify practices or lineages that insist on a guru as a precondition for liberation. This was perhaps tied in with vast cultural and religious changes in north India where authority, both political and religious, came to be heavily emphasized. This likewise applied to Hindu schools of thought as well. Buddhist institutions like Nālandā became fortresses with abbots acting effectively as lords over the peoples in their territories. In such a cultural context authority and deference to authority seem to have become a lot more emphasized than ever before.

Chan definitely had the idea of a teaching transmitted outside of scriptures from master to disciple, though that might have specifically come to exist in the seventh or eighth centuries. According to McRae in Seeing Through Zen, Bodhidharma forms the "proto-Chan", having died around 530 (see page 13). There's also a source saying Bodhidharma arrived from Persia in China in 547 (see page 26). A lot of the details of his hagiography and the teachings attributed to him are difficult to take at face value. So, assuming Chan really starts in the 7th century, there would have been such influences from India and especially all the more so come the 8th century when Indian esoteric masters started introducing practices which required initiation and lineage.

Interesting. All these do seem to point to post Yogacara, and the beginning of esoteric orders.

[Astus]

Relax, and drop the desire to perceive meaning.

I look at the monitor, drop all desire to perceive any meaning, and it is just colours. How does reducing one's mind to that of a butterfly attracted by light help? Sure, it doesn't ask questions. But on the other hand, a butterfly is not very wise either. I doubt Linji had this in mind.

[Astus]

I wonder if we can pinpoint more or less when in Buddhism does the primacy of the guru comes into play? Would that be the early stages of esoteric or vajrayana Buddhism?

Chan was never bound to having a teacher overlooking one's progress, although naturally most monks had elders to guide them. The abbot/master is an authority figure but not a guru, since he was the head of the entire monastery. The idea of a lineage - that gives the authority to the master - started in the 8th century when first (at least according to the earliest historical sources) a disciple of Shenxiu claimed primacy among fellow Chan teachers, and then Shenhui's claim to being the true heir and Huineng the real heir of Hongren (instead of Shenxiu).

[greentara]

"Post-Gupta India saw the rise of feudalism with both Hindu and Buddhist doctrines shifting towards dependence on living authorities rather than scripture. In other words, more pressing concern with hierarchy and authority than before" Yes this is true but there was an alternative path as well as some devotees took to singing devotional songs and became homeless, wandering minstrels singing the praises of the divine and moving right away from authority of strict scipture. Two that jump to mind are the beautiful songs of the 'low caste' Kanaka Purandar and Purandara dasa who was a jeweller and gave all his wealth away after a mystical, life changing experience

[oushi]

Relax, and drop the desire to perceive meaning.

I look at the monitor, drop all desire to perceive any meaning, and it is just colours. How does reducing one's mind to that of a butterfly attracted by light help? Sure, it doesn't ask questions. But on the other hand, a butterfly is not very wise either. I doubt Linji had this in mind.

If it is just colours, it's still meaning. But above all, desire to gain something through this act, which is also meaningless. It's not about being dumb, not at all. It's about dropping all, which requires great bravery, because it is not desired at all, to see oneself as meaningless. Ones acts and ideas, as meaningless... Ego will rebel. Still, it is meaningless struggle. "Buddha is an idle person".

But if you can stop your heart(mind) from its ceaseless running after wisps of the will, you will not be different from the Buddha and patriarchs.

Easy to say, hard to do. That is why I said, drop meaning. As for me, it is the very last act that can be dropped and it takes apart the greatest obstacle for seeing emptiness. Because if something is intellectually seen as empty, its meaning is very "solid". When one makes a view out of emptiness, this enforces the meaning, and becomes terrible trap. If everything is seen as meaningless, that is true emptiness which sages taught about.

[Astus]

If it is just colours, it's still meaning. But above all, desire to gain something through this act, which is also meaningless. It's not about being dumb, not at all. It's about dropping all, which requires great bravery, because it is not desired at all, to see oneself as meaningless. Ones acts and ideas, as meaningless... Ego will rebel. Still, it is meaningless struggle. "Buddha is an idle person".

But if you can stop your heart(mind) from its ceaseless running after wisps of the will, you will not be different from the Buddha and patriarchs.

Are you saying that one should turn into a piece of stone by dropping all? No perception, no acts. Or is it still perceiving and acting but like a lunatic who can't understand anything that happens?

In my opinion Linji simply talks about not making a fuss, not attaching unnecessary sentiments to ordinary events. Life goes on just as before but we have to take it easy, to see clearly because one is without attachment, identification to emotions and ideas. There are thoughts, there are feelings, one can understand perfectly what goes on, but they are all illusory, all momentary appearances in the infinite sequence of causality.

[oushi]

Are you saying that one should turn into a piece of stone by dropping all?

Not at all, stone is not a Buddha.

No perception, no acts.

That's meaning, just from "negative" perspective.

Or is it still perceiving and acting but like a lunatic who can't understand anything that happens?

That's still worrying about not understanding.

In my opinion Linji simply talks about not making a fuss, not attaching unnecessary sentiments to ordinary events.

Not attaching to ordinary events, you say. What about those extraordinary?
About ordinary stuff:

Venerable ones, just be your ordinary selves and refrain from fanciful imaginings.
...
Nothing is more precious than to be a man who has nothing further to seek. Just do not give rise to any fancies, and be your ordinary selves.
...
Just be your ordinary selves with nothing further to seek, relieving nature, wearing robes and eating. “When tired I sleep. Fools laugh at me, the wise understand.”
...
As I see it, there is nothing complicated. Just be your ordinary selves in an ordinary life, wear your robes and eat your food, and having nothing further to seek, peacefully pass your time.

About extraordinary stuff:

From everywhere you have come here; all of you eagerly seek the Buddha, the Dharma, and deliverance; you seek escape from the Three Worlds.
You foolish people, if you want to get out of the Three Worlds, where then can you go? The Buddhas and patriarchs are only phrases of adoration.
...
There is no Buddha to seek, no Way to accomplish, no Dharma to be obtained.
...
Those satisfied with merely completing the ten stages of the Bodhisattva are like serfs. Those content with universal and profound awakening are but fellows carrying cangue and chains. Arhats and Pratyeka-Buddhas are like cesspits. Awakening and Nirvana are like tethering posts for donkeys.
...
Followers of the Way, do not take the Buddha for the supreme aim.I myself see him as a privy hole, and the Bodhisattvas and Arhats as beings who bind men with cangue and chains.

Looks quite contrary to what you said.

[Astus]

Looks quite contrary to what you said.

I said ordinary events, nothing about being ordinary or not ordinary. What does "being ordinary" mean? As you quoted "Just be your ordinary selves with nothing further to seek, relieving nature, wearing robes and eating." Now, where is the difference here between common people and enlightened people doing the same thing? Attachment.

[oushi]

Looks quite contrary to what you said.

I said ordinary events, nothing about being ordinary or not ordinary. What does "being ordinary" mean? As you quoted "Just be your ordinary selves with nothing further to seek, relieving nature, wearing robes and eating." Now, where is the difference here between common people and enlightened people doing the same thing? Attachment.

Are you attached to relieving nature? Hmmm...

People are attached to things they perceive as extraordinary. Meaning give rise to importance, which is proportional to desire, which results in attachment. People are not attached to things they see as meaningless, unimportant and ordinary. See how Linji addresses things that are very important for Buddhists : "Awakening and Nirvana are like tethering posts for donkeys.", or "Followers of the Way, only a great teacher dares to disparage the Buddhas and patriarchs, dares to criticize everything, to defy the Teachings of the Three Baskets, and abuse immature students, and so, whether straight or crooked, find the man within"

Here is a very interesting device, that can easily be seen as complete and sufficient:

As to my own actualization these days, it is truly creative and destructive. I play about with miraculous transformations,entering all circumstances, and wherever I am, I have nothing further to seek.
Circumstances could not change me. If students come to seek, I go out to look at them. They do not see me, so I put on all kinds of robes. The students at once start speculating about them, taken in by my words.
It is all very sad.
Blind shaven ones, men who have no eyes, they lay hold of the robes I am wearing — green, yellow, red or white. When I take those off and put on the robe of purity, the students cast one glance and are beside themselves with joy. And when I take it off, they are disappointed and shocked, run about frantically and complain that I go naked.
So I say to them: "Do you at all know me who puts on all these robes?" And suddenly they turn their heads and recognize me.

Venerable ones, do not look for robes! Robes cannot change the man. It is the man who wears the robes.
There is the robe of purity, the robe of the unborn, the robe of Bodhi (awakening) and the robe of Nirvana, the patriarchal robe and the robe of the Buddha.
Venerable ones, those are only noisy names, wordy sentences, and are all a mere change of robes. Names arise from the ocean of breath in the region of the belly; their fierce drum beat rattles your teeth so that they stutter out interpretations. Do you not see that these are but illusory phantoms?
Venerable ones — outwardly voice, speech and action are brought forth; within they are but surface expressions of the Dharma. When you have thoughts, there is also volition and all these make the various robes.
If you seek those robes that are worn and mistake them for the real thing, you will spend innumerable Kalpas only to learn these robes, will be driven around in the Three Worlds, and circulate among birth and death. Far better it is to have nothing further to seek.
"To meet him without recognizing him; to speak with him without knowing his name."

[Astus]

Are you attached to relieving nature? Hmmm...

People are attached to things they perceive as extraordinary. Meaning give rise to importance, which is proportional to desire, which results in attachment. People are not attached to things they see as meaningless, unimportant and ordinary.

I don't know what you mean by "relieving nature".

Primary attachment lies in the five desires: food, sex, sleep, wealth, fame. Everyday things. Only religious Buddhists are infatuated by nirvana, buddhas, etc. (which is of course appropriate for Linji to talk about to monks). So, when Linji says, one should just go on eating and sleeping however one pleases, it is not the same as in the five desires. Although we can say that those are very ordinary things. But, as you said, they are very important to people and they give meaning to their lives. Still, who can live without food and sleep?

[oushi]

Primary attachment lies in the five desires: food, sex, sleep, wealth, fame.

Only if they mean alot for you. Attachment is applied to meaning, mind cannot grasp meaninglessness. There is nothing about sex in the teachings of Linji, but without the need of going far away, there is something about it in teachings of Bodhidharma:

But since married laymen don’t give up sex, how can they become Buddhas?

I only talk about seeing your nature. I don’t talk about sex simply because you don’t see your nature. Once you see your nature, sex is basically immaterial. It ends along with your delight in it. Even if some habits remain’, they can’t harm you, because your nature is essentially pure. Despite dwelling in a material body of four elements, your nature is basically pure. It can’t be corrupted.

There is nothing wrong in food, sex, sleep, wealth and fame. Only when they are high on your list of important things, they become a problem.

Still, who can live without food and sleep?

Nobody needs to give them up. From a different basket, but directly addressing you concern:

"When you enter this pure path,
Unsuitable things which otherwise would be eliminated
-Even the five passions and the five heinous crimes-
Are wonderfully the same.
Nothing, not even sex, is abandoned"

The pure path is seeing everything on the "important things list" as empty. There is no high and low.

For if you love the sacred and hate the worldly, you go on floating and sinking in the ocean of birth and death

Take away meaning and everything is "wonderfully the same", because differentiation must be based on meaning. Without it, there it no way to differentiate.

[pueraeternus]

I wonder if we can pinpoint more or less when in Buddhism does the primacy of the guru comes into play? Would that be the early stages of esoteric or vajrayana Buddhism?

Chan was never bound to having a teacher overlooking one's progress, although naturally most monks had elders to guide them. The abbot/master is an authority figure but not a guru, since he was the head of the entire monastery. The idea of a lineage - that gives the authority to the master - started in the 8th century when first (at least according to the earliest historical sources) a disciple of Shenxiu claimed primacy among fellow Chan teachers, and then Shenhui's claim to being the true heir and Huineng the real heir of Hongren (instead of Shenxiu).

True, at least according to how I observed things are in my experience with Chan. The master to disciple mind transmission described by Huseng is probably just a vehicle for lineage propagation, but does not have to do with each practitioner's individual attainments.

[Astus]

Take away meaning and everything is "wonderfully the same", because differentiation must be based on meaning. Without it, there it no way to differentiate.

What do you mean by differentiation? A monk, like Linji, has to be able to uphold 250 precepts. That involves a lot of discerning about what to do and what not to do. He also criticises monks who don't have wisdom,

"And then there’re a bunch of shavepates who, not knowing good from bad, point to the east and point to the west, delight in fair weather, delight in rain, and delight in lanterns and pillars." (p. 21, Sasaki)

[oushi]

What do you mean by differentiation? A monk, like Linji, has to be able to uphold 250 precepts.

Venerable ones, I cannot these days cease from using a lot of words, and come out preaching many inept things, but do not let yourselves be deceived!
As I see it, there are not really so many principles. If you want to act, just act; and if you do not want to act, then rest.
It is said that the Six Paramitas and the Ten Thousand Practices are the Buddha-Dharma. I say they are but methods for spiritual adornment and for carrying on the Buddha's work; they are not the Buddha-Dharma.
That and all the rest, (such as)observing the rules of food and conduct with the care of a man carrying a bowl of boiling oil so as not to spill a drop, yet all these practices do not make the eye clear.
The day will come when the debts are to be paid and the cost of being kept will be exacted.

He also criticises monks who don't have wisdom,
"And then there’re a bunch of shavepates who, not knowing good from bad, point to the east and point to the west, delight in fair weather, delight in rain, and delight in lanterns and pillars." (p. 21, Sasaki)

"Good" is "no differentiation" and it's not about wisdom in the sense of knowing. Teaching are always provisional, that is why they can be used freely. Zen teachings are full of paradoxes because language itself is limited, that is why masters often regret they said anything, as they had to use false tool. It is greatly used in Diamond sutra for example. It is because you cannot say anything about non-differentiation, as each and every words comes from differentiation.

"It is for the one Great Matter that we hold this session today. Are there any more questioners? Let them step forward quickly and ask! But, when you as much as open your mouth, you are already off the point. Why is that so? Do you not know that Buddha said: ‘The Dharma is other than words; it is neither limited nor conditioned.’ Because you have no faith in this, you are entangled and tied into knots.

If something points to differentiation it is "bad", but also this very statement is differentiation. That is why it can be compared to using a thorn to pick up a thorn.

The pure light of your heart at this instant is the Dharmakaya Buddha in your own house. The non-differentiating light of your heart at this instant is the Sambhgakaya Buddha in your own house. The non-discriminating light of your own heart at this instant is the Nirmanakaya Buddha in your own house.

This is differentiation, but used to point to non-differentiation. That is why it can be called "good". Just a method to direct, nothing holy.
I will pick up something from 3rd Patriarch:

The Perfect Way is only difficult for those who pick and choose;
Do not like, do not dislike; all will then be clear.
Make a hairbreadth difference, and Heaven and Earth are set apart;

[Astus]

"Good" is "no differentiation" and it's not about wisdom in the sense of knowing. Teaching are always provisional, that is why they can be used freely. Zen teachings are full of paradoxes because language itself is limited, that is why masters often regret they said anything, as they had to use false tool. It is greatly used in Diamond sutra for example. It is because you cannot say anything about non-differentiation, as each and every words comes from differentiation.

Paradoxes in a teaching means contradiction, that means illogical, and that is nonsense. I see no use of nonsense teachings. Some teachings may seem contradictory in Buddhism, but only as long as one makes a mistake about their meaning. I find both Zen and the Diamond Sutra perfectly sensible.

Teachings are meant to guide people to liberation, to the ultimate. The way to guide should be understandable and reasonable so that people can comprehend and follow it. Using gibberish or confusing sentences have the contrary effect.

As Nagarjuna (MMK 24:8-10, tr. Samten & Garfield) writes,

"The Buddha’s teaching of the Dharma
Is based on two truths:
A truth of worldly convention,
And an ultimate truth.
Those who do not understand
The distinction between these two truths
Do not understand
The Buddha’s profound teaching.
Without depending on the conventional truth,
The meaning of the ultimate cannot be taught.
Without understanding the meaning of the ultimate,
Nirvana is not achieved."

The Samdhinirmocana Sutra (ch. 2, tr. Keenan) says,

"ultimate meaning is realized internally by each saint, while reasoning is attained in the give and take [of joint discussion] among common worldlings."

and

"the saints, being freed from language through their holy wisdom and insight in this regard, realize the perfect awakening that reality is truly apart from language. It is because they desire to lead others to realize perfect awakening that they provisionally establish names and concepts and call things conditioned or unconditioned."

In the commentary to the chapter by Asanga (Powers, p. 36):

"Moreover, [Buddha] clarifies and opens up [the meaning of the ultimate]. With respect to that, [Buddha] "clarifies"s by way of clarifying well [the meaning of the ultimate] due to presenting designations of doctrines. He "opens up" [the meaning of the ultimate] by way of teaching the meaning."

[oushi]

To see nothing is to perceive the Way, and to understand nothing is to know the Dharma, because seeing is neither seeing nor not seeing and because understanding is neither understanding nor not understanding. Seeing without seeing is true vision. Understanding without understanding is true understanding.
True vision isn’t just seeing seeing. It’s also seeing not seeing. And true understanding isn’t just understanding understanding. It’s also understanding not understanding. If you understand anything, you don’t understand. Only when you understand nothing is it true understanding. Understanding is neither understanding nor not understanding.

I have nothing more to add in the area of meaning. The message is the same as in Diamond Sutra. In meaninglessness, opposites are not found.
I am interested in your interpretation of Diamond Sutra, but this would require another topic, so maybe next time.

From Nagarjunas Vigrahavyavatrani :

If I had any thesis, that fault would apply to me. But I do not have any thesis, so there is indeed no fault for me.

That is where his explanations ended, in not clinging to any thesis, any meaning.

[Astus]

That is where his explanations ended, in not clinging to any thesis, any meaning.

That's where it's ended, not where it started. To reduce Linji's teachings to "do nothing" or "cling to nothing" is missing the most important message: the way to do it. Madhyamaka presents its own methods. And Chan does too. Although TNH's commentary to the Linjilu is titled "Nothing to Do, Nowhere to Go", it doesn't end with those six words on the cover.

[oushi]

To reduce Linji's teachings to "do nothing" or "cling to nothing" is missing the most important message:

Then, why are you trying to reduce it like that? "Do nothing" sounds totally missed, as it is just opposite of doing something. "Nothing to do" is correct, as it is open for doing and non-doing.

[LastLegend]

Oushi, what have you been smoking?

[Astus]

"Do nothing" sounds totally missed, as it is just opposite of doing something. "Nothing to do" is correct, as it is open for doing and non-doing.

There is "nothing to do" when one has finished with something. When there is nothing to do from the beginning, it means that everything is already fine. Unfortunately, most of us sentient beings are in samsara and it is not fine. So, there is something to do. How does it help in your view if we just tell ourselves that it is OK as it is? What changes? And if nothing changes, well, it is useless, it is not liberating, it is not the Buddha's teaching. Although Nagarjuna says that there is no difference between samsara and nirvana, but he also explains how and why that realisation is actually liberating. Linji too talks about realising that all phenomena are nothing but conceptual creations, illusions, and when one can actually see it that way, then there is nothing left to do. As you have quoted before, Linji sees the differences between practitioners and unties their mental knots accordingly. It's not that he just sits there telling everyone that everything is already perfect and they just shouldn't do anything. You say that "nothing to do" is where doing and not doing something are both possible, where one has the freedom. That is good. Still, how do you achieve that? That's what I'm asking.