The Platform Sutra: Sections 17-18 and commentary, p140-147 (145-153 on Kindle)

[Kokuu]

Dear all

This week we will read sections 17 and 18. In this part of the sutra, Huineng lays out what he considers to be the basics of dharma teaching – no thought, no form and no attachment. He does, however, clarify that no thought does not mean having a completely empty mind but rather that we should not think about thoughts and just let them flow without attaching to them.

Often, when I wake up, my mind starts spinning with thoughts and I find I can just let them do their thing, like a hamster wheel running, without needing to interfere. Thoughts are not the problem, but our taking them as real and solid.

Red Pine notes that he likes to think of no form as the root of a tree, no form as the trunk and no thought as the leaves. He also points to the importance of negation and the word no, which is also an important component of The Heart Sutra (and, for those of a certain age and inclination, the 1993 Eurodance classic No Limit!).

Huineng says that once a thought is interrupted, the dharma body becomes separated from the material body which, to me, has huge echoes from the Hsin Hsin Ming of “Separate by the smallest amount, however, and you are as far from it as the heaven is from earth”.

Likewise he says that “if you can just be free of forms, the body of your nature is perfectly pure”. Red Pine emphasises the connection of this with The Diamond Sutra which we are seeing is a continuing thread in this work. Huineng states that the ‘no’ here, and likewise in The Heart Sutra, negates duality and afflictions.

His words are very clear here on p143 (149 in the Kindle version) that thoughts are just the natural function of mind. However, once we start to add layers on top of the thoughts (thinking about thoughts) we make them into objects and concepts with their own reality outside of ‘suchness’ (Jp. Immo).

In section 18, Huineng says that in Zen we do not contemplate the mind or purity, neither are we dispassionate.

We cannot know the mind, only what arises, and thinking about the purity of practice separates us from what is already pure. Similarly, if we think about being dispassionate (which can be defined as “not influenced by strong feelings or emotions”) we can fall prey to acting as if we are dispassionate rather than just allowing things to be as they are in a natural way.
Huineng is also pointing to traditional Buddhist practices and emphasising the differences with what he is teaching in terms of thought watching, contemplating purity and impurity and trying to cultivate dispassion as something in and of itself, rather than as a fruit of practice.

Questions

1. How do you view Huineng’s statement ‘To be free of form in the presence of forms’? What does that look like in practice?
2. What do you see as the difference between dispassion (or we might say ‘non-attachment’) when we try to present that rather than when it arises naturally? Or, to put it another way, what does it look like when someone is trying to be dispassionate rather than being natural or genuine?

Wishing you all a good week.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Chikyou]

Tough questions! I’ll do my best to answer them but I’m far from confident here.

1) I only have a nebulous experiential idea of what this means. I grok it, but I can’t put it into words. As soon as I try to put it into words, I insert form and division into the concept of no form and no division.

2) Intentional dispassionate responses are always a little off putting to me. I can often tell when someone is trying to pretend that they don’t have an opinion or judgement on something, and it makes me a little uncomfortable, because I know they’re hiding something. (Maybe this is straying a bit off topic, but I always tend to assume to worst about what they’re hiding because why hide it otherwise?) On the other hand, when someone has a naturally unattached, chill vibe they’re some of my favorite people to hang out with. That sort of thing is socially contagious in a good way and I enjoy being in the presence of people who have that mindset.

Gassho,
SatLah,
Chikyō

[Hosui]

Thanks Chikyou for opening.

1. For me this emptiness of form manifests in the practice of my not stoking the fires of delusion, e.g., in believing myself to be something separate. It's habitual to chuck stuff on these flames and become entranced at the spectacle of our so-called independence. These days, as part of this study group, I choose not to insist that the phenomena around me have an intrinsic nature. At the moment (who knows for how long) this is a conscious effort, and so this is my practice.
2. This is a case of trying too hard and method-acting dispassion. When I get all holy and Robert de Niro-like I tell myself to just let the acting go and realise there's ultimately no difference between nirvana and samsara. That does the trick.

Gassho
Hosui
sat/lah today

[Onsho]

1. How do you view Huineng’s statement ‘To be free of form in the presence of forms’? What does that look like in practice?

The first thing that came to mind was a line in Hokyo Zammai, “The meaning is not in the words, yet it responds to the inquiring impulse.”I want to rewrite this as -The meaning is not in the forms, yet it responds to the inquiring impulse.

It expressed the middle way. The merging of the relative and absolute. Out of our one eye there are forms,(sight, touch, smell, sound) which represent meanings, and concepts and ‘bondage’. Out of our Dharma eye there is no meaning in these forms, these perceptions are empty.

In practical application, it means to me to regard our sense perceptions in their true nature and not to the meaning we have assigned to it. The meaning is not in the forms. The forms have no meaning until we muddy them up


2. What do you see as the difference between dispassion (or we might say ‘non-attachment’) when we try to present that rather than when it arises naturally? Or, to put it another way, what does it look like when someone is trying to be dispassionate rather than being natural or genuine?

I see toxic masculinity tied up into this concept. Stubborn, inflexible, uncompromising. The self image of being strong, wise, smart. And if that godlike image is compromised in any way, it is unskillfully defended at all costs. I think dispassionate is a word that is best used to describe other people and never to be used for your own personal image.

Gassho
Onsho
satlah

[Hokuu]

1. How do you view Huineng’s statement ‘To be free of form in the presence of forms’? What does that look like in practice?

For me, it’s about being with the world, engaging with the world but not being its slave.
In zazen, it means not trying to stop thoughts and letting them be but not being engaged with them; and even when I find myself engaged with thoughts, not to forcefully stop them but gently let them go.

2. What do you see as the difference between dispassion (or we might say ‘non-attachment’) when we try to present that rather than when it arises naturally? Or, to put it another way, what does it look like when someone is trying to be dispassionate rather than being natural or genuine?

Well, it’s the difference between being and pretending.
On another hand, being genuinely dispassionate requires some practice too, so at some point trying to be dispassionate is the way to go. I think that the thin line here is to be aware when I’m faking for the sake of making vs convincing myself that “I’m a chill guy” when in reality I just lie to myself and those around me.

Gassho
Hokuu
satlah

[Hoseki]

1. How do you view Huineng’s statement ‘To be free of form in the presence of forms’? What does that look like in practice?

I think it means to be take a form to be the self. When I talk of my body, or my feelings I’m positing a self. Simply letting them arise and fall there is no I beyond awareness. So we could say that the self is the awareness but that awareness only arises when something else arises. Awareness does persist through the arising and falling of phenomena but it’s always an awareness of something.

In practice, that could be labeling as things arise and fall but it could, and I think this is Huineng’s position, also be simply allowing this to come and go without asserting an I in the situation.


2. What do you see as the difference between dispassion (or we might say ‘non-attachment’) when we try to present that rather than when it arises naturally? Or, to put it another way, what does it look like when someone is trying to be dispassionate rather than being natural or genuine?

If we take my suggestion that positing an “I” is a form of attachment trying to act dispassionately is doing just that. There is an I who is suppose to act this way rather than simply allowing the strong feelings to come and go. We can’t stay enraged for ever. Eventually it peters out and if we allow it to manifest without acting on it, engaging in it or trying to ignore it then it should resolve itself on it’s own.

Gassho,

Hoseki
Sattoday/lah

[Kokuu]

Thank you once again for some great answers!

I think that all of you get the jist of question one, that it is in observing forms but not attaching to them that we find freedom, and understanding the Heart Sutra's famous couplet, rūpaṃ śūnyatā śūnyataiva rūpaṃ (form is emptiness, emptiness is form). All things arise from dependent co-arising which can be useful to remind ourselves of and also from The Diamond Sutra (again!):

"As a lamp, a cataract, a star in space, an illusion, a dewdrop, a bubble, a dream, a cloud, a flash of lightning, view all created things like this”

Things arise and fall away again. None remain as they are.


I agree with all of you on the second part also. It is usually easy to tell when someone is faking dispassion and can be a warning flag. It was a relief to me that in Zen it is more important to be genuine than present ourselves as forever manifesting equanimity regardless of what is happening.

In my own life and practice, sometimes I can genuinely have states like this. At other times, not so much! Setting a benchmark of perpetual equanimity just seems to be setting people up to fail and maybe even encourages people to fake it rather than be honest.

As Hoseki says, wanting to demonstrate dispassion/equanimity is very much buying into the idea of a self which has attributes and credentials rather than is in a process of being re-created in each moment.

Tomorrow, we continue with parts 19 and 20!

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Taigen]

1. How do you view Huineng’s statement ‘To be free of form in the presence of forms’? What does that look like in practice?
2. What do you see as the difference between dispassion (or we might say ‘non-attachment’) when we try to present that rather than when it arises naturally? Or, to put it another way, what does it look like when someone is trying to be dispassionate rather than being natural or genuine?

I'm catching up on this after a very full week, I very much enjoyed reading everyone else's responses and will try to just add where I feel I have something new.
1. To me, this is about not being committed to a doctrine, ideology, "right" or "wrong" way as one encounters the world, but open to whatever the best response is at any given moment. "Forget the rules, be untroubled" (Tao Te Ching, Ch. 19).
2. This reminds me of the story of the monk who cries at the death of his friend. The other monks chastise him for such a display of emotion, but ultimately its much more inhumane to NOT feel grief at the loss of a loved one. Non-attachment doesn't mean you don't cry when your friend dies, it means you don't cause more suffering for yourself and others by demanding that it be otherwise.

Gassho,
Taigen
SatLah

[Choujou]

1. How do you view Huineng’s statement ‘To be free of form in the presence of forms’? What does that look like in practice?
2. What do you see as the difference between dispassion (or we might say ‘non-attachment’) when we try to present that rather than when it arises naturally? Or, to put it another way, what does it look like when someone is trying to be dispassionate rather than being natural or genuine?

apologies for my being late on responses this week, as I was away on holiday and fell a little behind… probably not much to add…

1. To me, it is to recognize and truly see the emptiness of all forms, all dharmas. In practice this is not just on the zafu, but also the wisdom that guides our actions and intentions with all dharmas.

2.The difference is ego… the one who is displaying dispassion is wrapped in ego, and wanting to seem wise and practiced… but instead will come off cold and heartless. Those aligned with their true natures will naturally be non-attached and will still have compassion and caring for all beings.

Gassho,
Choujou

sat/lah today

[Tairin]

I seem to be perpetually behind in our readings. I’ll try to stay caught up going forward.

1. How do you view Huineng’s statement ‘To be free of form in the presence of forms’? What does that look like in practice?

We live in a world of forms and yet we shouldn’t get overly attached to form. My favourite example here is a form we call a chair. We see a chair and attach to it the concept that a chair is for sitting on. But from the perspective of another being, an ant, a chair isn’t something to sit on. It is something to crawl over. In fact the ant likely doesn’t differentiate the chair from the ground or a tree log.

2. What do you see as the difference between dispassion (or we might say ‘non-attachment’) when we try to present that rather than when it arises naturally? Or, to put it another way, what does it look like when someone is trying to be dispassionate rather than being natural or genuine?

Hard to describe but I think we can generally spot a phoney particularly someone who might be trying to fake “non attachment” or “dispassion”. We all attach. In fact it is very hard to live in the world of the Relative, without some attachment, could be attachment to people, things, concepts, feelings etc. A person who falsely attempted to always present “non attachment” would seem robotic and cold.


Tairin
sat today and lah

[Houzan]

Me too!

1. A statement that gets to the heart of our practice. It also means: to be free of thinking in the midst of thought and to be free of attachments in the midst of attachments. In practice it could mean to sit with pain in peace. It also could mean to, while sitting, move in peace in response to pain.

2. To be dispassionate is to be attached to non-attachment. To be free is to be beyond attachments, to be non-attached to our attachments. In a specific situation I believe it would be impossible to spot. Over time, however, you could see if someone allows emotions to flow through or not.

Gassho, Hōzan
satlah