The Platform Sutra: Sections 43-44, p232-239 (238-245 on Kindle)

[Kokuu]

Dear all

This week we will look at sections 43 and 44 of the sutra, which brings us to the end of Part III of the text. I estimate that this study will go on for another four weeks, so if you are also joining in with The Zen Master's Dance read-along, you will only have to double up for a short while.

In section 43 a monk called Chih-ch’ang comes to visit Huineng and asks why he speaks of the Supreme Vehicle rather than the Three Vehicles that the Buddha spoke of (although it should be pointed out that the Three Vehicles is itself a Mahayana contrivance and there is no mention of Vehicles in the Pali Canon)?

Huineng explains the meaning of each of the Three Vehicles and how they are all part of the Supreme Vehicle.

In section 44, another monk, Shen-hui, asks Huineng whether or not he sees in meditation. Huineng gives that typically annoying Zen answer that we all love that he both sees and doesn’t see! He does, however, go on to demonstrate this to Shen-hui by hitting him three times and asking if it hurts or doesn’t hurt.

When Shen-hui replies that it both hurts and doesn’t hurt, Huineng says that it is the same as his ‘I see and don’t see’. Shen-hui investigates Huineng’s comment again and likewise Huineng asks Shen-hui to explain his answer, finding it wanting.

After this encounter, Shen-hui became Huineng’s student and remained at Tsaohsi.


Questions

1. Is it useful to think of the Three Vehicles of dharma or might we more think of this as a historical or analytical division of the teachings and dharma students?
2. How do you find both Huineng’s and Shen-hui’s answers in terms of seeing and not-seeing, hurting and not hurting? How would we usually explain this dichotomy in Zen?

Wishing you all a beautiful week.

Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Hosui]

Teaching only gets us so far, hence Don’t ask me about it. The ‘usefulness’ of ‘thinking’ in the question seems removed from the bigger point Huineng was making, namely, just look at your own mind [that is sufficient as it is].

The Hui-neng/Shen-hui slapstick is better explained, IMHO, by the ‘I’ and ‘with’ distinction first articulated by the Buddha when he saw the morning star. “I and the great earth, together with all beings, simultaneously achieve the way”. Yes, there is an ‘I’ that sees-doesn’t see/hurts-doesn’t hurt, and there is the ‘with’ that is the great earth together with all beings (the universe). The reality experienced as our daily practice is the exploration of the ‘I’ and ‘with’ simultaneously. What's this stinging sensation of having been whacked with a great big stick? Ah, it’s the universe!

Gassho
Hosui
sat/lah today

[FNJ]

Dear all

This week we will look at sections 43 and 44 of the sutra, which brings us to the end of Part III of the text. I estimate that this study will go on for another four weeks, so if you are also joining in with The Zen Master's Dance read-along, you will only have to double up for a short while.

In section 43 a monk called Chih-ch’ang comes to visit Huineng and asks why he speaks of the Supreme Vehicle rather than the Three Vehicles that the Buddha spoke of (although it should be pointed out that the Three Vehicles is itself a Mahayana contrivance and there is no mention of Vehicles in the Pali Canon)?

Huineng explains the meaning of each of the Three Vehicles and how they are all part of the Supreme Vehicle.

In section 44, another monk, Shen-hui, asks Huineng whether or not he sees in meditation. Huineng gives that typically annoying Zen answer that we all love that he both sees and doesn’t see! He does, however, go on to demonstrate this to Shen-hui by hitting him three times and asking if it hurts or doesn’t hurt.

When Shen-hui replies that it both hurts and doesn’t hurt, Huineng says that it is the same as his ‘I see and don’t see’. Shen-hui investigates Huineng’s comment again and likewise Huineng asks Shen-hui to explain his answer, finding it wanting.

After this encounter, Shen-hui became Huineng’s student and remained at Tsaohsi.

Questions:


Is it useful to think of the Three Vehicles of dharma or might we more think of this as a historical or analytical division of the teachings and dharma students?


The 3 (four!?) vehicles are also referred to as the Hinayana (derogatory), Mahayana, Vajrayana, Ekayana. There is a saying that though these are different traditions and schools they also represent different types of practitioners within a Sangha in every tradition. Also people can change vehicles as their understanding changes throughout their lifetime.


How do you find both Huineng’s and Shen-hui’s answers in terms of seeing and not-seeing, hurting and not hurting? How would we usually explain this dichotomy in Zen?


Is seeing the faults of others the same or different from seeing one’s own faults? If a person sees defilements, there are defilements (whether they are yours or someone else's).


From a depth psychology perspective, when we react strongly to another person’s faults (especially if the reaction is disproportionate) it often suggests projection. That is, we’re unconsciously displacing parts of ourselves we can’t acknowledge (our "shadow") onto others. For example, if someone’s arrogance enrages us, it may point to repressed pride, insecurity, or shame in ourselves.


In this sense, seeing the faults of others can actually be a disguised way of encountering our own.

Sat LAH
gassho
Niall

[Chikyou]

1. Is it useful to think of the Three Vehicles of dharma or might we more think of this as a historical or analytical division of the teachings and dharma students?

I think it’s useful, at least for some students. I see the Three Vehicles as part of (but not separate from) the One Vehicle. Similar to our discussion a week or two ago, you have the dharmas, and the Dharma.

1. How do you find both Huineng’s and Shen-hui’s answers in terms of seeing and not-seeing, hurting and not hurting? How would we usually explain this dichotomy in Zen?

Shen-hui’s answer resonated with me quite a bit. “Like a rock” and yet “like a human being still subject to anger” - I feel this sometimes, especially in zazen; like I am a part of this world, being worked up and kicked around and yet I am beyond all that. I’m struggling a bit to understand why Huineng was so harsh with Shen-hui, because I thought Shen-hui made a good point. It appears that Huineng thought Shen-hui was being a smart ass (and maybe he was - I wasn’t there and don’t know the context/tone of voice etc).

Gassho,
SatLah,
Chikyō

[Taigen]

Questions

1. Is it useful to think of the Three Vehicles of dharma or might we more think of this as a historical or analytical division of the teachings and dharma students?
2. How do you find both Huineng’s and Shen-hui’s answers in terms of seeing and not-seeing, hurting and not hurting? How would we usually explain this dichotomy in Zen?

1. When I was a youth minister we would host Vacation Bible School for kids in the summer, think a week long Bible-themed day camp if you've never experienced this yourself. Often, there would be children enrolled whose parents had realized that signing up their kid for a different VBS every week of the summer was cheaper than day care, so these poor kids got shuttled to a different church every week to go through what was often the same program over and over again (most churches used the same publisher for curriculum and supplies).

I will never forget one summer, I had a girl who was probably 8 or so years old come up to me and ask, "I don't go to this church, are you guys Christian?" I said, "Yes! We call ourselves 'Lutheran,' which is just a kind of Christian." She replied, "The church I was at last week told me that you aren't Christian at this church and I shouldn't listen to you."

I think it is useful for us to make some historical distinctions between different strains of thought in Buddhism. No one would deny that Theravada, Vajrayana, and Mahayana Buddhism have different flavors and philosophies (and really, even within Mahayana, Zen sticks out). But every time one of these texts makes these assessments of "This school is less, this one is in the middle, and ours is the best," I wince. One could argue that they are speaking figuratively and don't mean to associate those labels with specific schools or groups of people, but rather with practices or ways people approach Buddhism, but those arguments always ring hollow to me; people don't always deal with nuance well and it is a short walk from "our school is Greater, theirs is Lesser" to "Die, heretic!" Like Hui-neng says, see your own faults, be blind to the faults of others. It's ok for us to debate philosophy and methods, but at the end of the day, we're all basically on the same team here. (Sorry to run long)

2. Zen is always toying with the not-dichotomy of absolute and relative. Jundo's "two sides of a no-sided coin." TBH, as an autistic, I hate these word games. The whole idea that I could be going about my day and someone comes up and asks me a question that might be honest or it might be the initiation of a battle of wits that I am ill-equipped for is very stressful!

Gassho,
Taigen,
SatLah

[Onsho]

Is it useful to think of the Three Vehicles of dharma or might we more think of this as a historical or analytical division of the teachings and dharma students?
I think I like the Three Vehicles as a way of imposing a curriculum on students. Starting with the Small Vehicle observing, listening, reading, and reciting. Its totally the foundation of the journey. Middle Vehicle, understanding it and putting it all together. Great Vehicle, putting it into practice and living your life alongside it. I would find this to be a great way to standardize your message when sending hundreds of monks to wonder for a year, easy to remember and no parchment needed.

How do you find both Huineng’s and Shen-hui’s answers in terms of seeing and not-seeing, hurting and not hurting? How would we usually explain this dichotomy in Zen?
Hurt doesn’t exist but the action happens. Our human nature uses its deluded mind to measure, explain and assess a story about what was experienced and if its worth repeating. Hurt is now born by association but isn't a part of our original nature. So yes, OUCH! But it also is empty of any meaning.

Gassho,
Onsho
satlah

[FNJ]

1. When I was a youth minister we would host Vacation Bible School for kids in the summer, think a week long Bible-themed day camp if you've never experienced this yourself. Often, there would be children enrolled whose parents had realized that signing up their kid for a different VBS every week of the summer was cheaper than day care, so these poor kids got shuttled to a different church every week to go through what was often the same program over and over again (most churches used the same publisher for curriculum and supplies).

I will never forget one summer, I had a girl who was probably 8 or so years old come up to me and ask, "I don't go to this church, are you guys Christian?" I said, "Yes! We call ourselves 'Lutheran,' which is just a kind of Christian." She replied, "The church I was at last week told me that you aren't Christian at this church and I shouldn't listen to you."

I think it is useful for us to make some historical distinctions between different strains of thought in Buddhism. No one would deny that Theravada, Vajrayana, and Mahayana Buddhism have different flavors and philosophies (and really, even within Mahayana, Zen sticks out). But every time one of these texts makes these assessments of "This school is less, this one is in the middle, and ours is the best," I wince. One could argue that they are speaking figuratively and don't mean to associate those labels with specific schools or groups of people, but rather with practices or ways people approach Buddhism, but those arguments always ring hollow to me; people don't always deal with nuance well and it is a short walk from "our school is Greater, theirs is Lesser" to "Die, heretic!" Like Hui-neng says, see your own faults, be blind to the faults of others. It's ok for us to debate philosophy and methods, but at the end of the day, we're all basically on the same team here. (Sorry to run long)

2. Zen is always toying with the not-dichotomy of absolute and relative. Jundo's "two sides of a no-sided coin." TBH, as an autistic, I hate these word games. The whole idea that I could be going about my day and someone comes up and asks me a question that might be honest or it might be the initiation of a battle of wits that I am ill-equipped for is very stressful!

Hi Taigen I like what you wrote here!

Some argue that were it not for Gotama's luck we could very well be Devadattians instead of Buddhists. Devadatta was a contemporary of Gotama and essentially was a rival "wiseguy" who's community almost supplanted Gotama's.

Devadatta

Also the "battle of wits" thing can get old. But I wonder if you come to fully accept your own nature whether anything you say can be wrong? (Says the guy who put his foot in his mouth daily).

Sat LAH
Gassho
Niall

[Hoseki]

Hi folks,

1. Is it useful to think of the Three Vehicles of dharma or might we more think of this as a historical or analytical division of the teachings and dharma students?

I think it's probably good to know as there might be a time when it's useful information. If I was to engage with this kind of talk my self I probably wouldn't use these terms as they invite the kind of comparison that I don't think is usually helpful. I'm also, not sure if Huineng's descriptions are correct which might be another reason to be a little cautious with that kind of language.

1. How do you find both Huineng’s and Shen-hui’s answers in terms of seeing and not-seeing, hurting and not hurting? How would we usually explain this dichotomy in Zen?

The thing that stood out to me was this line, “If it didn’t hurt, I would be the same as a lifeless stick or a rock. And if it hurt, I would be the same as an ordinary person still subject to anger.” I think Huineng is saying that that description sets Shen-hu against a stick and an ordinary person. He's seeing them as outside himself. I think this is contrasted with Huineng who would see these things as himself. So its the difference between small mind, the personal aspirations vs big mind which is more or less everything. I'm not sure how to square this with Huineng making reference to others when he talks about what he sees. But that might be the dualistic part. See and not see, self and other. But in our practice there is both no self and other and there is a self and other. Shen-hu asking about seeing is asking about something that's not part of his experience but Huinengs'. This type of question would probably be fine in a different context.

Gassho,

Hoseki
sattoday/lah

[Kokuu]

Hi all

As ever, thank you very much for engaging with the text and the questions. Some great answers here and I am going to pick ou a few bits to comment on.

Firstly, from Taigen:

I will never forget one summer, I had a girl who was probably 8 or so years old come up to me and ask, "I don't go to this church, are you guys Christian?" I said, "Yes! We call ourselves 'Lutheran,' which is just a kind of Christian." She replied, "The church I was at last week told me that you aren't Christian at this church and I shouldn't listen to you."

Yes, this definitely is where the problems are and many moons ago I was a moderator for a Buddhist e-mail list and there was more than a degree of tension between Mahayana Buddhists and Theravadins (many of whom came from traditionally Theravadin countries). As several of you have pointed out, Mahayana teachings can be derogatory towards what they term Hinayana, and we found that also (and perhaps in response) Theravadins would completely disregard all of the Mahayana sutras. With that being the case you could imagine a similar scenario of a someone going to a different Buddhist tradition and being told by his own lineage not to listen to them which (to me at least) is really not ideal.

I like what Onsho says here:

I think I like the Three Vehicles as a way of imposing a curriculum on students. Starting with the Small Vehicle observing, listening, reading, and reciting. Its totally the foundation of the journey. Middle Vehicle, understanding it and putting it all together. Great Vehicle, putting it into practice and living your life alongside it. I

The Tibetan Buddhist teacher Reggie Ray has a similar take in which he sees that initially coming to the path, most of us want to learn the dharma in order to free ourselves from our own suffering but as we progress, we see that all beings are caught in exactly the same situation which causes compassion and bodhicitta to arise and the path to take on a different perspective.


As regards the second question, I agree with Chikyou:

I’m struggling a bit to understand why Huineng was so harsh with Shen-hui, because I thought Shen-hui made a good point. It appears that Huineng thought Shen-hui was being a smart ass (and maybe he was - I wasn’t there and don’t know the context/tone of voice etc).

I couldn't see what was so terrible about his answer either. He may not have got it exactly but Shen-hui seems to be engaging with it in good faith.

Hosui gives a good explantion of how we usually explain the 'hurt, not hurting' situation:

The Hui-neng/Shen-hui slapstick is better explained, IMHO, by the ‘I’ and ‘with’ distinction first articulated by the Buddha when he saw the morning star. “I and the great earth, together with all beings, simultaneously achieve the way”. Yes, there is an ‘I’ that sees-doesn’t see/hurts-doesn’t hurt, and there is the ‘with’ that is the great earth together with all beings (the universe). The reality experienced as our daily practice is the exploration of the ‘I’ and ‘with’ simultaneously. What's this stinging sensation of having been whacked with a great big stick? Ah, it’s the universe!

I agree with Taigen, that the wordplay that can happen of meeting absolute statements with relative ones and vice-versa does get old pretty quickly, but a good teacher should employ this wisely in order to point us towards the vastness of the universe when we are caught in the relative, and towards what it right here right now when we get lost in the vastness. It shouldn't just be a word game.


Gassho
Kokuu
-sattoday/lah-

[Jishin]

Kokku,

Howdy,

From Texas.

Jishin

[Kokuu]

Good to see you, Jishin!

[Tairin]

Playing catchup again

• Is it useful to think of the Three Vehicles of dharma or might we more think of this as a historical or analytical division of the teachings and dharma students?

We are taught to set aside categorizations. We are taught to set aside distinctions. Unfortunately the Three Vehicles seem to both categorize the Dharma as well as define some sort of ranking of understanding. It is interesting that even the historical teachers couldn't avoid this trap. Maybe it is one of the risks of using language. In any case I am not sure it is useful at least it isn't to me.

• How do you find both Huineng’s and Shen-hui’s answers in terms of seeing and not-seeing, hurting and not hurting? How would we usually explain this dichotomy in Zen?

Not two. Not one.
Or as Jundo would say "Two sides of a no sided coin".


Tairin
Sat today and lah