BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 2

[Graceleejenkins]

Re: BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 2

I like this. "Vast emptiness. No holiness."
Everything encompassed just as it is. No holiness. No unholiness.
I tend to want to look for holiness. Next time, I'll say this to myself--vast emptiness, no holiness.

[Jundo]

Re: BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 2

In Shobogenzo Gyoji, Master Dogen tells it this way [Tanahashi translation] ...

On the first day of the tenth month Emperor Wu sent a messenger to Bodhidharma to invite him to the palace.

Bodhidarma went to the city of Jinling and met with Wu, who said, "Ever since I ascended the throne, I have built temples, copied sutras, approved the ordination of more monks than I can count. What is the merit of having done all this?"

Bodhidharma said, "There is no merit."

The Emperor said, "Why is that so?"

Bodhidharma said, "These are minor achievements of humans and devas, which become the causes of desire. They are like shadows of forms and are not real."

The Emperor said, "What is real merit?"

Bodhidharma said, "When pure wisdom is complete, the essence is empty and serene. Such merit cannot be attained through worldly actions."

The Emperor said, "What is the foremost sacred truth?"

Bodhidharma said, "Vast emptiness, nothing sacred."

The Emperor said, "Who is it that faces me?" Bodhidharma said, "I don't know."

The Emperor did not understand. Bodhidharma knew that there was no merging and that the time was not ripe. Thus without a word he left on the nineteenth day of the tenth month and he traveled north to the River Yangzi.

Was Bodhidharma telling Wu to give up on his charity? I don't believe so. However, when desiring and doing good deeds to fix what's lacking in the world, pierce that ever empty and serene, without desire and goal, never lacking.

Was Bodhidharma telling Wu that there is just endless nothingness, nothing holy? Certainly not! Vast emptiness is everythingness, each and all wholly-holy-whole.

Was Bodhidharma telling Wu "I don't know"? No! The whole holy and serene, sacred empty-everything knows for sure!

Gassho, Jundo

[Brian Roessler]

Re: BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 2

I'm thinking about emptiness and intention and gaining.

Sawaki roshi said "Zazen is good for nothing", which I think is a boiled down paraphrase of this koan.

Sawaki's nothing feels like vast emptiness and no holiness to me. If zazen life is approached with hands out, stalked like a cat ready to pounce, I have entirely missed the space in which I sit, this interdependent, vast, empty network.

[Madrone]

Re: BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 2

Jundo's words reminded me of a time once when I complained about painting a big room in an old craftsman-style house (with lots of complex trim). It was taking forever to get done. Then a friend suggested that I just focus on the next brushstroke, over and over. It did not change the work, but it changed everything. I remember that now when i am faced with a similar big project. Maybe all of life's experiences could be like that?

That phrase "vast emptiness. no holiness" strikes me as both terrifying and comforting.

[Kyonin]

Re: BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 2

Can you think of some activities in your life that would be/are richer when undertaken dropping completely all thought of reason or merit or goal or holiness/specialness to it?

Yes, a lot of situations and actions come to mind. As of late I have been thinking on how my life has been subject to my own judgement and attachments. Sometimes I think "if only I had know this a that time", but then I sit and realize that the past is perfect

However from a few years to the present I have done a lot of things that I have never accomplished in the past. I have drop all over thinking and even planning. I simply do things one day a at a time and before I know it I have a business, became a runner, lost weight and became a Treeleaf member.

Could/can you still manage to diligently and sincerely pursue the activities nonetheless (like Bodhidharma so diligently sitting for so long) working toward its successful accomplishment?

Yes, I think so. Sometimes it's hard not to think too much. I have noticed that when I think too much or talk too much of a goal, I tend not to accomplish it. So I just do things quietly and most of the time I try not to over think.

How would you accomplish (or "non-accomplish") such a thing? What's such accomplishing-non-accomplishing like?

Hard to explain. I take my running as an example. All I knew is that I was spending too much time sitting in front of my computer, but I had no money to pay for a gym or return to martial arts. But the streets are free. So one day I simple went out for a walk, with no goal whatsoever.

In a couple of months the walk became a brisk walk and then I started to jog for a minute. Then I was slowly running for 5 minutes. Then I thought "if I can run for 5 minutes, I surely can run for 6"... and so on.

One and a half year later I am running 10K races, but still I have no goal. I just do it, without thinking.

Accomplishing-non-accomplishing feels different from everything. When I cross the finishing line I just cross it. It doesn't feel like a victory or like an achievement, nor I celebrate like the other runners. If anything I feel hungry

And the same accomplishing-non-accomplishing feeling goes to a lot of my recent activities. That's why this koan means a lot.

[Rich]

Re: BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 2

Bodhidharma's 'don't know' is the expression of vast emptiness, nothing holy. I believe Buddhism had been in China for several hundred years before Bodhidharma came but the essence had been lost to Sutra study and the worship of Buddhist deities. While this may have worked for the emperor and his society, the heart of sitting practice was re-established by Bodhidharma. That's my recollection of the historical context.

[Shokai]

Re: BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 2

What is meant by the word 'holiness' Imo, Bodhidharma meant emptiness is nothing special; yet special enough that your whole life depends on it!!
Thank you all for sharing and explaining;

and simplicity explodes in an epic mess. :shock: :lol:

[Myoshin]

Re: BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 2

When I read this sentence "I don't know" I was looking my legs, my arms and wondered Where is the limit of me? It was not intellectual, but as the commentator says it snatches everything, so I felt empty, but an emptiness who made me scared, because I understood there is no control in my life (even there are choices, and liberty to act).

[RichardH]

Re: BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 2

When I read this......

Bodhidharma knew that there was no merging

.....it brings to mind the "wild fox koan" ... which really rings a bell for me. ....kind of at the edge of it.

Is he talking about merging with "nothing holy great space"..? How can we merge with that...? or is he talking about merging with the karma of giving.. of doing? Isn't "great space, nothing holy" realized in living when we merge with our karma.. are nothing but our karma 100% ..? with no holding back.. on even the most subtle level? It just seems to me that the notion of "great space, nothing holy" can also be the sneakiest way of holding back... of not going over 100%....... to 100% form.. 100% emptiness.

[andyZ]

Re: BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 2

Kojip,

I have "Blue Cliff Record" book where this koan also appears. It's a bit longer there and it actually talks about the question that the emperor asked. So the question was about the two truths conventional and ultimate (relative and absolute). And the "holly truth of Buddhism" was that the relative and the absolute are not two. So that's what the emperor wanted to ask Bodhidharma about. The "vast emptiness" is the absolute and the "I don't know" is the relative. I think in that sense Dogen's comment about "not merging" makes perfect sense.

[Rich]

Re: BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 2

"The Emperor did not understand. Bodhidharma knew that there was no merging and that the time was not ripe. Thus without a word he left on the nineteenth day of the tenth month and he traveled north to the River Yangzi."

If your understanding and my understanding is the same then there is merging. But if we have totally different ideas about Buddhism or whatever, we are separated. That's what I thought Dogen meant.

[Risho]

Re: BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 2

Why? It would seem like there is no point if "no merit" and "no holiness", just "vast emptiness". Why bother ... why sit? Likewise, was he actually telling the Emperor not to do these good works, and that they really had no worth or merit?

If we sit to attain something, that is not sitting. All of us sit to attain something at some point; it's how we come to this practice in the first place. The search is part of the path. But when we get on the path, we realize that we don't have to grasp at stuff (and then I forget, and then I come back, and then I forget, and then I come back; it's like a macrocosm of Shikantaza). This grasping is what gets us in this mess of Dukha in the first place. This question seems like the same question that Dogen asked himself. Why practice if we are already Buddha's? Referencing the koan at the end of Genjokoan, why fan yourself if the nature of wind is ever present?

You may be Buddha, but being Buddha and realizing it are different. When we realize our Buddha-nature, true compassion unfolds. True compassion (again to paraphrase Dogen) is to grasp a pillow in the dark, natural action in response to our knowledge that we are not inseparably linked with other beings in the universe. But we don't live like that. We live like we want to get there before anyone else so they can't take what's mine, and when I say we I mean me. I catch myself doing this, but thanks to practice I'm catching myself and observing that merit driven (merit-thirsty) mind.

To paraphrase Jundo, when we sit to sit, without thought of attainment, we are attaining something, something incredible. It's a transformation in terms of the way we live, but it takes practice. I'm 36 years old, and I'm very competitive, and I'm driven. Those aren't bad things at all, but the way in which I have approached them is exclusive to others. I need practice because those habits are so ingrained, my habitual response is not going to change overnight. Rather, it will take time. Who knows how long? I don't care how long; that's why the vows are important. They take us away from some visible end point that we can reach and measure. By wholeheartedly practicing that which is unattainable, we continue our way. That is the most important thing.... consistency and continual practice. All the other shit with practice, how good do you look doing it? Are you feeling better? It doesnt really matter; practice is for a lifetime, so by getting rid of the goals, we get our heads out of our asses and just sit.

This is from Zazen for Beginners Part V; here Jundo talks about this wonderful path of non-attainment... which is really attainment of something vast and profound.

As I have mentioned before, in sitting, we drop from mind all judgments of the world, all resistance… all thought that life “should be” or “had better be” some other way than just as we find it all. No matter how it is going, or the direction it takes, we drop –to the marrow – all thought that the race should be turning out some other way. In other words, we learn to go totally with the race’s flow.

And thus, the goal is constantly crossed underfoot even as we keep on running forward… yet we persist in running until we cross the line of thoroughly realizing that fact of the line’s true location in each step, then keep on running more steps after steps because all of life turns out to be “Practice.” The very act of running brings the race — and the Buddha’s teachings — to life. So, we keep on running despite no need to”get.”

Radically dropping, to the marrow, all need to attain, add or remove, or change circumstances in order to make life right and complete IS A WONDROUS ATTAINMENT, ADDITION, and CHANGE TO LIFE! Dropping all need to “get somewhere” is truly finally GETTING SOMEWHERE!

Did that mean that Old B'dharma actually "just didn't have a clue", or ... for he already was surely a Great Master whose reputation proceeded him ... did this "I don't know" manifest a most profound Knowing? Maybe a Knowing, but without some pesky "I" in the way, no separate things to be known, no names and labels and other outside facts to hammer down ... just Not Knowing Knowing?

He had a clue. lol But he knew that he didn't know what he was. There is an "I". You and me are separate, but we are also connected, and my existence is dependent upon everything else's existence. The only way to differentiate among things is by comparing them to what they are not. The word differentiated, itself, contains the very fact of our interdependence.

On a superficial level, we "know" who we are. Fathers, Mothers, workers, etc. But Bodhidharma didn't give a shit about that question. He wasn't going to say he was some zen master. That is just an attribute... a changing attribute. He was answering what we truly are, constantly changing; he was giving a teaching. So I think in all his years of practice he was genuinely answering I don't know..> Knowledge doesn't reach this place, only practice and direct realization does... but that doesn't mean we ever know in the sense of dualistic understanding.

I mean who are you? I look at myself, and there is very little I have to actually do to stay alive. I am composed of countless systems that keep me living. I somehow know how to chew food and my body takes care of absorbing it. It's amazing. On a larger level, that's what the universe is..> it's made up of interdependencies that we can't even begin to imagine yet.

But then, if there was already actually Knowing ... why sit? If no 'I', why sit his ass down?

I ask myself this a lot... I don't have an answer always. Lots of times it is to realize myself. To really understand Dukha and to understand how to live in my life... When I say in my life, I mean it. Live by being engulfed in my life.. doing fully what I'm doing, not trying to do something to escape to some other place where I believe all my problems will be solved. I sit to help other people by what the practice gives to me. Hopefully that helps me to help others on some level, perhaps by being less self-interested.

Added Suggested Question:

Can you think of some activities in your life that would be/are richer when undertaken dropping completely all thought of reason or merit or goal or holiness/specialness to it?

I think every activity is better when dropping these grasping thoughts. I remember a work situation where we were a new team and we had to prove ourselves, so every day was literally like "swimming with sharks". I got to a point where I couldn't do that anymore, so instead of trying to one up everyone I thought I'd start listening more and contribute more naturally when I was needed. It was like a breath of fresh air... lots of unnecessary pressure and stress were lifted.

I also think of working out. Working out and eating right usually are doomed from the start because everyone starts with the end goal of looking good in mind. In order to be consistent with that or anything really, the small minded goals need to be dropped and an appreciation of just doing what you are doing needs to take place. Otherwise, no amount of willpower in the world will sustain the disicipline required to continue.

Could/can you still manage to diligently and sincerely pursue the activities nonetheless (like Bodhidharma so diligently sitting for so long) working toward its successful accomplishment?

Absolutely. By focusing on the activity at hand, wholeheartedly. Although there may be a goal, I think the goal will come about naturally if what you do, you do completely.

How would you accomplish (or "non-accomplish") such a thing? What's such accomplishing-non-accomplishing like?

I think it's much more fun doing activities like this without worrying so much about an abstract goal. Fully doing something just for the sake of doing it is very freeing.. it's almost like you are a child again playing during recess. You don't know what goals you have, you just want to play with the kids. I really feel that's how work is, and other things in life are when we let go of the grasping and just do the things we are doing. Although this is easier said than done; grasping mind is pervasive, and that's why I practice.

###########################################
Edit:

But dropping all thoughts of attainment does not give us license to complacently sit like a bump on a log or to live our life passively. It means that we have realized a responsibility to give our all to whatever we are doing. In fact, the only way to give our all and do all we can do is by completely doing it, and not splitting our focus on what we would like to happen.

So we do put forth great effort and we still try and do our best at whatever it is, but we lose the thoughts of having to get something. So this isn't passive bs. This is an active practice

Gassho,

Risho

[alan.r]

Re: BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 2

"The Emperor did not understand. Bodhidharma knew that there was no merging and that the time was not ripe. Thus without a word he left on the nineteenth day of the tenth month and he traveled north to the River Yangzi."

If your understanding and my understanding is the same then there is merging. But if we have totally different ideas about Buddhism or whatever, we are separated. That's what I thought Dogen meant.

Yes, this is really interesting, mainly because that "no merging" part is a bit difficult to decipher. What or Who is the "no merging" referencing, I keep asking myself? Kojip has one take, Andy has another, and Rich gives us a third.

Again, who is the "no merging" referencing? This questions leads me to three more:

1. Is it Emperor Wu alone?
2. Is it between Wu and Bodhi-D?
3. Is this "no merging" speaking more generally, of all things, no-merging-as-in-things-are-already-merged, no separation from the beginning and thus no such thing as merging?

I really don't know.

All three questions at once, plus the first? I think possibly Rich and Andy's interpretations can be "merged" (I'm sorry, I know, I know, I had to) together.

Okay I'm done, I'm gone.

Gassho,
Alan

[RichardH]

Re: BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 2

Kojip,

I have "Blue Cliff Record" book where this koan also appears. It's a bit longer there and it actually talks about the question that the emperor asked. So the question was about the two truths conventional and ultimate (relative and absolute). And the "holly truth of Buddhism" was that the relative and the absolute are not two. So that's what the emperor wanted to ask Bodhidharma about. The "vast emptiness" is the absolute and the "I don't know" is the relative. I think in that sense Dogen's comment about "not merging" makes perfect sense.

Hi Andy... could you expand a bit on how "I don't know" is the relative? Thanks.

Gassho, kojip.

[RichardH]

Re: BOOK OF EQUANIMITY - Case 2

Yes, this is really interesting, mainly because that "no merging" part is a bit difficult to decipher. What or Who is the "no merging" referencing, I keep asking myself? Kojip has one take, Andy has another, and Rich gives us a third.

Hi Alan. I think Andy and I are talking around the same point. Form and emptiness are one..not-two. Realizing 100% form is realizing 100% emptiness.. 99% form is not emptiness... that is what I mean by holding back .. not "going over", or not moving completely.

But whether this is what is referenced in the koan I'm not sure.