Core principles

Certain core principles define any human endeavor, and this is true of Buddhism. One of the core principles is dependent origination which underscores nearly all Buddhist thought. Another is impermanence. Another core principle is emptiness, which is an aspect of dependent origination and serves as the basis for the Heart Sutra—Form is emptiness; Emptiness is form.

To many, this equality between form and emptiness is confusing. It seems impossible that perceptible form can be the same thing as emptiness, which is imperceptible, yet the Heart Sutra tells us they are the same. Dependent origination helps us to understand, which says that nothing exists as a mutually discrete entity, separate and apart from anything else. Instead, things arise and cease to exist simultaneously—Rain and water are one; a mother and a child are one. Neither rain nor a child can exist separate and apart from a source. These are just two examples among an infinite set of pairs. The ultimate pair is form and emptiness; Nothing is more fundamental than that—Everything else is a subset.

It would be impossible to separate rain from water or a child from a mother. This is easy to understand. What is not so easy to understand is that all forms are paired with emptiness. Buddhism teaches that all phenomena are impermanent and simple reflection affirms this. Nothing lasts, and clinging or resisting the impermanence of form creates suffering; thus, bliss is not found in phenomenal life. So, where is there a source of hope? Our hope lies imperceptibly beneath impermanence at the heart of decay. And what is that heart? Huang Po (Japanese—Obaku; 9th century China) was particularly lucid in his teaching about this. In the Chün Chou Record he said this:

“To say that the real Dharmakaya (the Absolute) of the Buddha resembles the Void is another way of saying that the Dharmakaya is the Void and that the Void is the Dharmakaya...they are one and the same thing...When all forms are abandoned, there is the Buddha...the void is not really void but the realm of the real Dharma. This spiritually enlightening nature is without beginning...this great Nirvanic nature is Mind; Mind is the Buddha, and the Buddha is the Dharma.”

From Huang Po’s perspective, there is a bonded connection between phenomena and this One Mind—They too are the same thing. Neither can exist apart from the other. Hear what he said about his connection...

“To gaze upon a drop of water is to behold the nature of all the waters of the universe. Moreover, in thus contemplating the totality of phenomena, you are contemplating the totality of Mind. All these phenomena are intrinsically void, yet this Mind with which they are identical is no mere nothingness. By this, I mean that it does exist but, in a way, too marvelous for us to comprehend. It is an existence which is no existence, a non-existence which is nevertheless existence.”

“To the ancients, to find the true essence of life, it was necessary to cast off body and mind. When all forms are abandoned, there is the Buddha.” In an unexplainable way, Mind is no-Mind, which is, of course, the Heart Sutra teaches—Form is emptiness. This Void/Emptiness is the ground out of which impermanent forms arise. It is Buddha-nature (Buddha dhatu—womb of the Buddha: Our essential nature). And the pearl of hope contained in this understanding is that while phenomenal life blows away like dust in the wind, our true nature never passes away. Our intrinsic nature is both natural (phenomenal and finite) and transcendent (noumenal and infinite). We are both form and emptiness. To savor, just the impermanence aspect of Zen without transcendence is to suck on an empty clamshell and imagine a full stomach.

Two Realms—One Reality

A prominent scientist and a girl on the edge of becoming a woman seem to have little in common. I know them both intimately and thus see the common ground even though they may not. 

Both are highly intelligent, both creative, both kind, and a pleasure to be with. One is a senior citizen, the other still a teen. Their worlds and concerns are years apart, yet they seek the same thing: Rules and guidance systems to plot a future path. Their chosen paths are very different, but their approach is the same. 

In our phenomenal world, it’s an expedient matter to measure conduct against adopted standards. It keeps us on track and out of the weeds, at least most of the time. Conditional society couldn’t function very well without agreed-to standards that define acceptable behavior and help us chart the road ahead. The problem is that such standards only work when everyone embraces the same standards, but standards that suit one person don’t suit another, which is why we have conflict—No universal agreement. 

One of the central teachings of Buddhism is “Dependent Origination.” The teaching is not difficult to understand, but it seems difficult to fully embrace. The premise is this: All things exist in balance with the opposite. For example, “down” requires “up;” light requires darkness; phenomena require noumena (infinite other examples). These opposites are dependent and arise and cease together. There would be no such thing as a down without an up, which is why the teaching is called what it is—things depending on opposites to originate and cease together. 

Simple to grasp but not so simple when it comes to adopting needed standards. And why is that? Because a standard used to measure light wouldn’t work so well when there isn’t any light. And this observation becomes even more critical when it comes to the edge separating opposites, which is to say, “How do you establish rules and standards on the edge dividing the opposites?” Where neither is there, yet both are there. 

This sounds like an impractical consideration but stay with me. My scientist friend is a brilliant physicist pushing the limits beyond normally acceptable boundaries (into the metaphysical realm). The young lady is likewise exploring the limits beyond normally acceptable boundaries of ethics. She is searching for some spiritual rules and guidance. Both go into the same realm and try to use proven yardsticks from the phenomenal realm applied in the noumenal realm without realizing that the rules must change when you cross that boundary line. What we become accustomed to—perceptible objectivity, becomes worthless when operating in an imperceptible realm. It is like trying to find a new set of glasses which will allow you to see air. 

We commonly make two errors in conducting our phenomenal affairs, and these two haven’t changed since the time of The Buddha. The errors are that we perceive objects as either fixed and lasting or fluid and decaying. In one sense, we conclude with permanence and in the other nihilism. This conundrum is exactly the same as what confronted people in The Buddha’s time, and what he realized upon his enlightenment is that both are true, and neither is true (as separate matters). 

His enlightened resolution came to be known as The Middle Way. But how does that make sense? How can something (anything) be both true and not true at the same time? For that to work, it is necessary to acknowledge this dilemma, which my two friends are wrestling with—The opposites of phenomena and noumena and being willing to stand with one foot in each of those two camps. The Sutra of Complete Enlightenment (Address by the Bodhisattva of Pure Wisdom) said 

“...the intrinsic nature of Complete Enlightenment is devoid of distinct natures, yet all different natures are endowed with this nature, which can accord and give rise to various natures.” 

Elsewhere, it says that enlightenment is not something that comes and goes; it is ever-present. This, too, seems like an irrational statement. It is a perfectly logical question to ask, “If enlightenment is ever-present, then how is it I don’t experience it?” Perhaps the answer to that question is that we are trying to see air with a new set of glasses. Air can’t be seen with any glasses, and “Complete Enlightenment is devoid of distinct natures...” If enlightenment has no defining nature, then it doesn’t matter how sharp our vision—It can’t be seen. 

Yet the Sutra goes on to say that “all different natures are endowed with this nature, which can accord and give rise to various natures.” So what is the pearl of wisdom here? Perhaps the pearl is to stop expecting the impossible and accept that the task is not to invent another set of tools but rather live by the Spirit’s constant infusion. Buddhists might choose to call Spirit “Buddha-Nature.” Christians might choose to call it “The Holy Spirit,” but a name is just a handle. Some people prefer one handle, others prefer another handle, but noumenal truth has no handle or nature. 

We are not comfortable in “flying blind,” but isn’t that the definition of expedient means—Doing what is needed, one moment at a time, as phenomenal life flows and changes? How useful is it to use fixed standards when all of life is shifting and changing? The rules that worked yesterday are yesterday’s rules, and tomorrow’s rules will only work when unknown conditions arise. Circumstances change, and when they do, we need to measure the moment and act appropriately. This flexible way requires only one leap of faith—That enlightenment is a constant reality, and it has no nature.

Balance

Probably everyone who has ever lived has been taught what appears to be so—that life and death are separate. This seems to be the beginning and the end of the matter.

Throughout life, we experience half of things and go unaware of the other half. We experience good vs. evil, up vs. down, left vs. right, form vs. emptiness, samsara vs. nirvana: Anything and everything seems to be one thing as opposed to another. It is always the “versus” rather than the unified integration of opposites. This implicit teaching (either formal or not) is a reflection of what appears before our eyes. How could opposites be present together? 

 In the Śūrańgama Sūtra, The Buddha shares a vision with Ananda. He takes a scarf, and, grasping opposite ends, he ties a knot. He repeatedly repeats the knot tying until he has all six knots tied one on top of the other. What began as a single unified piece of cloth with two opposites ends is now knotted together. He then asks Ananda: “How should I untie these knots? Should I grasp only one end or the other and pull?” 

Ananda answers correctly, “No. The knots must be untied one at a time by grasping both halves of each knot and pulling.” This simple illustration reveals a profound truth. The six knots represent our six sensory faculties (e.g., eyes, ears, nose, tongue, touch, mind). Each of these six is programmed to function in a particular fashion, and this function comprises the aggregate of delusion. Eyes naturally respond to objects of form. Ears naturally respond to objects of sound, so on and so forth. Each of our sensory faculties responds to particular objects. Because of this, we are pulled astray, firmly convinced that life is nothing more than the aggregation of objects. 

The Buddha tells Ananda, “Until your six faculties merge and become interchangeable, you will never be able to put an end to your deluded mental acts.” How are we to understand this? At the source—the well-spring from which all arises, there is only unity. Here all six faculties merge and become as one. There are neither subjects nor objects. At this place of integration, which is the place of natural enlightenment, there are no “versus.” 

Discrimination arises from this place just as seeds grow from the earth, but there are everything and nothing in the earth itself. Due to the false conclusions necessitated by the six knots of perception that the five, seemingly discrete, aggregates arise. Form seems like a discrete matter. Perception seems like a discrete matter; cognition, mental formations, and consciousness likewise—all five have the appearance of mutual discretion. But this is a delusion. Form is not separate and opposed to emptiness. Contact and separation are the defining characteristics of the aggregate of sense-perception. 

What is recorded in memory (or not) is the defining attributes of cognition. And entering into the state of deep clarity and being stored in that clarity constitutes the aggregate of consciousness. Because objects appear before us, we accept them as the components which constitute our lives. We accept what appears and are unaware of what is the substrate of appearances. Both manifestation and source are happening continuously, yet we see only the manifestations, and in ignorance, conclude “versus.” In truth, manifestation and source are a single, unified scarf with knots. Life is death. These, and everything else, are interdependently joined together. Moment by moment, we breathe in life and exhale death. Our biology is continuously being regenerated, but it happens so that we are unaware until years later we look in the mirror and see a person we don’t recognize! Who is that old person? And where did the young one go? The rhythm of life/death is continuous and interdependent. And at heart, the real person is ageless and timeless and watches in amazement.

Drinking Tea

In my last posting, I ended with a confusing idea. This “...just go on suffering anyway” idea sounds wrong-headed, so I must explain. Suffering is what is caused by attachment and attachment can’t be avoided so long as we are subject to dependent origination and causal linkage. In my example of a driver and what is driven, combined with a linkage between cars and accidents, the conjunction results in suffering. 

The only way to have a different, non-suffering outcome is to detach drivers from cars and create a different causal linkage that doesn’t entail accidents. But this is a purely fictitious/after-the-fact fantasy. In the first place, it is impossible to detach drivers from cars since drivers arise with what they drive (cars) and no one can wind time backyards and change circumstances in a way that may seem more desirable.

The opposite of suffering (bliss) is not something that entails circumstances nor subject/object separation. Suffering and bliss occur in the same realm. Bliss has nothing to do with circumstances. Bliss is unconditioned—transcendent to all circumstances and results from accepting life just the way it is and not being disturbed. And why would it not be disturbing? It would be disturbing—always—at the conditioned level because of dependent origination and causal linkages and never disturbed at the unconditional level. We are not one kind of condition vs. another kind of condition. We are both conditions and unconditions at once.

The truth is that we are not carved up into mutually discrete sections like some butcher shop chart of a cow. We are an integrated whole. We speak as though we are parceled up but that manner of speaking is purely for convenience purposes. The relevant issue is who we are and how we respond to life, not what happens beyond our control (which is most everything). When we identify ourselves with the roles we play or the infinite abstractions of self, we will always suffer because these ways of identifying are not who we are. Who we are is unconditional and always secure. So when the tides of life flood us we will suffer yet we won’t.

We all have relationships. I am both a husband and a father. A husband is a husband because there is a wife. A father is a father because there is a child. When my sense of identity is attached to those roles I am vulnerable and subject to suffering. Why? Because when we have relationships we form conditioned expectations of performance. So long as our relationship partner performs up to expectations everything seems satisfactory. But let circumstances go against our expectations, then there are problems. 

We will never find peace when we place our hopes for fulfillment in another person. So long as we do that we’ll be disturbed. The correct way is to get clear about who we really are (selfless and without conditions). Then we can have fulfilling relationships which are filled-full to begin with, not as a result of what our partner does or doesn’t do. It is ludicrous to speak of relationships which are detached. Such a thing can’t exist. Husbands are attached to wives in the same way that drivers are attached to cars. There is no such thing as a husband without a wife. That would be an ex-husband or a widower, neither of which would be a husband. This is what I meant when I said—“When we drink tea, we just drink tea, with nothing added. No honey (thoughts)—just pure tea.”

A Reflection

It may be a good idea to pause and reflect at this juncture before proceeding on down The Path. We must get the first two steps correct since these two form the basis of what follows.

There is a risk of presumption inherent in discussing anything. We assume that we know what certain things mean and proceed based on that presumption, which is never a good idea. To ensure that we do not proceed down the primrose path with flawed presumptions, we’ll briefly pause to reflect on a vitally important matter: reality—how do we define reality?

The Buddhist perspective on reality is particular—upside-down from our ordinary understanding—and is defined as dependent origination. According to these criteria, something is real if it has “Intrinsic Substantiality,” meaning independent status, separate and apart from anything else. If it doesn’t meet that requirement, by definition, it’s not real. We could quibble about whether or not we like this definition, or even if the definition is accurate. Still, we’d miss the important point by so doing—this is the definition understood within Buddhism. Nobody says you must accept this definition, but you need to accept it if you want to make sense of the Eightfold Path. So, accordingly, what would be “real?” Absolutely nothing within the realm of conditional existence.

By conditional existence, think causal linkages. Nothing just pops into existence without prior conditions unless we’re talking the “Big Bang”—singularity, and in truth, there may have been a prior causal link even to that. There is growing scientific theoretical evidence to support this “before” perspective. But put that issue aside for the moment and think everything following then. And finally, when you hear the expression emptiness you must think, “not independent.” Emptiness is just the necessary partner of interdependent form. It does not mean vacuity/nothingness, which is, unfortunately, the common-coin understanding, which becomes a problem when you’re sitting looking at another person (or yourself in the mirror) and thinking, “I’m looking at a phantom.” A bit of a credibility problem arises from that piece of ignorance.

Now the dharma (teaching) of dependent origination says that everything has a counter-point that arises with events. Thus a mother arises with the counter-point of a child, instantly—not one then the other. There is no such thing as a “mother” without a child since, by definition, the term “mother” implies off-spring. Light arises with the counter-point of darkness. A self arises with a non-self. Form arises with emptiness. Emptiness arises with non-emptiness. Conditional reality arises with unconditional reality. These are all examples of simultaneous, interdependent arising. The list is without end. 

The causal links between phenomenal things, interdependently, creates karma like a cue-ball striking the eight-ball and sending it into the corner pocket, or a Zen master answering a novice with a wise answer—Book-ends. These forms are variations on the same theme of dependent origination, which denies the myth of independent, unlinked causal conditions. Every cause results in a measured response mandating “expedient means,” which is another way of saying one thing matching another—an appropriate response dictated, in wisdom, to a particular cause.

Why is this such a big deal? Let’s look at a real-life example. You get up in the morning feeling grumpy, and your teenage daughter makes some snippy comments. What happens next depends on whether or not you really “get it.” 

Variation # 1 would be to take offense and send a scorcher back at her, which she then fields and launches World War III. 

Variation #2 is not to respond in kind but to exercise forbearance and wisdom, taking into account that (a) your grumpy mood is not real but is rather a mental/emotional perception which is rooted in a “self” which is likewise not real (return to the definition of reality, please) and (b) that what is true for you is likewise true for your daughter. Variation # 1 is what we will do in ignorance and without being mindful of “reality.” 

Variation #2 is the flip side. In the first case, you feel forced to make a nasty conclusion that your daughter is just an independent-itch with a genetic streak, which she obviously got from your spouse (but not you) and that you are just having a bad day (but with some justification which escapes you at the moment). So both you and your daughter set off about the business of the day of creating some pretty bad karma that all begins with a distorted sense of reality and flawed perceptions.

So when we hear such statements as those in the Diamond Sutra which say, “Subhuti, no one can be called a bodhisattva who creates the perception of a self or who creates the perception of a being, a life or a soul,” we need to pay attention to this word “perception” and the definition of reality. Why? Because there is no such thing as an independent self, being, life, or soul and even if there were (which is impossible, given the Buddhist understanding of reality), what we perceive is a distortion. If you doubt this last statement about perception, just reflect on the example about your teenage daughter. What we perceive colors everything. And if we’re not extremely mindful and careful, our empty-perceptions will result in causally linked bad karma for which we must pay sometime down the road.

Our outlook on life (Our View) is either “Right”—which is a reflection of reality, unencumbered by flawed perceptions (as defined by dependent origination), or it is a reflection of ignorance. And this Right View flows (causally linked) into Right Intentions. Everything that follows is set in motion based on how we proceed from these two important first steps.

The Soil Beneath our feet

Before taking our first step down the Eightfold Path, it will be worth considering the soil beneath our feet, upon which this path lies. According to Ch’an Master Han-shan Te-ching (1546-1623), “All Buddhas come from prajna (wisdom).” 

That is a statement of source. The question is what, or where, is that source? It is obviously in our minds but not the divided mind we with which we are accustomed. The source lies in our transformed, integrated and balanced mind. Master Te-ching was one of the pre-eminent commentators on the Diamond Sutra, which is perhaps the most important Buddhist sutra on Wisdom, thus the name: “The Diamond Sutra-The Perfection of Wisdom.”

If nothing else, this sutra is a manual for Bodhisattvas to follow in honoring their vow. That vow is to strive for as long as saṃsāra endures to emancipate all sentient beings from saṃsāra and deliver them into Nirvana—The incomparable state of bliss. The Bodhisattva does not seek bodhi (awakening) solely for him/herself, but chiefly for the sake of freeing all other beings and aiding them into the bliss of Nirvana. 

Members of a Mahayana sangha recite this vow as a pledge, unfortunately often times without understanding how such a mission can be approached and realized. The Diamond Sutra is the manual for understanding the ground of wisdom upon which their path lies.

Bodhisattvas maintain prajnaparamita
Then their heart is without hindrance
And since without hindrance, without fear
Escaping upside-down, dream-like thinking
And completely realizing nirvana
All buddhas of all times maintain prajnaparamita Thus attaining anuttara-samyak-sambodhi (incomparable awakening).

In the eighth chapter of the sutra, The Buddha says to Subhūti that grasping and teaching a four-line gāthā from this sutra will result in merit greater than billions of worlds filled with the most precious of jewels. The four-line gāthā referred to is, “no perception of self, no perception of being, no perception of life and no perception of the soul,” and the meaning of that gāthā lies at the very heart of Buddhism. Until that gāthā is fully grasped (and taught) the mission of the Bodhisattva is doomed.

This gāthā is fundamental but not complete. The meaning is that every aspect of life and beyond from internal (self) to external (beings), in this time frame (life) and beyond the grave (soul) are empty of independent and intrinsic substance. These aspects: self, being, life and soul—do not exist separate and apart from context. All four aspects are forms, and every aspect of form depends upon corresponding aspects of emptiness. Dependent origination is the foundation of wisdom upon which the Eightfold Path lies.There is just one hair left that transforms this premise into majesty and converts this observation into the power of wisdom, and that hair is using the premise of dependent origination to destroy itself. What is the balance point upon which dependent origination depends? 

That “nothing”—absolutely nothing (including dependent origination itself)—has independent status. Wisdom that lies mired in a fixed status, while life itself is constantly in motion, is not wisdom. Such fixed wisdom is dead on arrival and the same must be said for the dharma of interdependent origination: it too can’t be a fixed teaching.

Yes, this juncture can get confusing. A dharma is supposed to be a truth-teaching of The Buddha. But this sutra says that while prajñā gives rise to Buddhas and their teachings, prajñā itself is not a dharma. In fact it goes further (and this can be very confusing) and says that Buddha dharmas are no Buddha dharmas. Dependent origination is the premier Buddhist dharma, but this sutra says that even this dharma is no dharma.

To fathom this conundrum we must move the discussion to the matter of attachment and clinging. At the center of the human dilemma, which produces suffering, lies attachment, which is a manifestation of the ego desiring stability. We resist change and aspire to stability. The problem is that, as this four-line gāthā points out, every aspect of life and beyond is moving and de-constructing. 

The illusions (which we create in our minds) is in one of two directions. Either we see total impermanence and conclude with nihilism (full of despair—nothing exists substantially) or the opposite of permanence, (full of denial—everything exists substantially). Neither of these two extremes exists independently. They too are subject to dependent origination. While it is true that one aspect of life is impermanent (self, being, life and soul) this aspect doesn’t exist independently any more than anything else. To cling to this realization will just continue saṃsāra and strip the bodhisattva of essential power. Neither aspect is real (by itself) but both aspects are real (interdependently) and to acknowledge this is to travel the Middle Way—The Eightfold Path.

What can it mean to use dependent origination to destroy itself? It means empty-emptiness or the fusion of opposites—total and complete destruction of discrimination and opposition. Dependent origination says that “this” arises with “that”—“is” arises with “is not”—nothing exists by itself. Thus to push the point, it means that dependent origination arises with non-dependent origination. If the premise has validity (any validity at all) the rule must apply to everything, one aspect of which is dependent origination. 

Form is not independent. Emptiness is not independent. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. The separation of these into discrete divisions of dualism is a delusion which we create in our minds, which in turn produces irresponsibility, isolation, estrangement, opposition, blame, anger, frustration and bad karma. And the only place where this delusion can be undone is where it originated: “in our minds.” A dharma is a manifestation in our minds. A dharma is a teaching of The Buddha which The Diamond Sutra says is not a dharma. If it is not a dharma/teaching, what can be learned and how is it possible to use a non-teaching to teach?

The answer is incredibly simple yet incredibly profound! And the answer must begin in faith—faith that Buddha-Nature and prajñā are ubiquitous and ever-present. A Buddha is forever an already fully realized (awakened) being. Prajñā is likewise ubiquitous and ever-present. A Buddha does not need a dharma, nor wisdom since a Buddha is already perfect and complete. Either we accept the ubiquitous and ever-present dimension of Buddha-Nature and prajñā or we don’t. It is a matter of faith. If it is true, then nothing is lacking in us (self), others (being) life (this life) or beyond (soul). It is not a matter of becoming enlightened or attaining some transcendent state since such is ever-present. The task is to begin with this understanding and proceed with the task of removing obscurations, defilements and delusions which block this inherent wisdom. The removal will reveal what is already there—enlightenment is not created, it is realized. As it says in the Heart Sutra...

Because nothing is attained

The question is (in today’s terms)—What’s the bottom-line? In other words, what difference does it make? Five points:

Wisdom can’t be taught. It can only be intuited. There are no hard and fast rules, regulations nor precepts which will cover all circumstances with the blanket of justice since life is ever-changing. True wisdom: prajnaparamita—is a continuous unfolding that perfectly reflects change. Removing obscurations that block access is like removing clouds that obscure the sun. The sun is always present, just as prajñā is.

Trying to attain what is ever-present is like trying to catch your horse while riding on the back of your horse.

Choosing one-side against another side is just trading one delusion for another delusion. Life is not divided into discrete, dualistic mutually exclusive, independent states. It is our mind which creates such divisions. We say, “form” and “emptiness” but these are not two things with independent status. They are obviously different and just as obviously the same. One can’t be separated from the other.

Integration (dependent origination) is the prevailing wisdom of life (but not an independent rule). We are inexorably linked with all sentient life, thus interdependent. To avoid that linkage is to live a lie and invite bad karma.

Non-dependent origination is the necessary condition to validate dependent origination. We use this non-dharma dharma to aid ourselves and others in the quest to gain emancipation and then we lose it. It too can become a source of clinging. True wisdom: prajnaparamita—is the same thing as emancipation.

Surrendering from all clinging sets us free. Wisdom, dharmas, The Buddha, self, beings, life, soul—All are fabrications of the mind. By removing all fabrications and living by the ever-present body of Buddha-Nature and wisdom, as it emerges and unfolds—is the supreme act of faith, and there is no greater bliss!

Having thus laid out the soil upon which the Eightfold Path lies, we’ll now begin to trod the path. “Buddhas say emptiness is relinquishing opinions. Believers in emptiness are incurable.”— Nagarjuna