Berwyn Watson, Rev. Master

The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana:

An Appreciation (Part One)

Rev. Master Berwyn Watson

—Throssel Hole Buddhist Abbey, UK—

The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana is one of those works that has had a profound effect on Mahayana teaching in China and Japan and on the Cha’n and Zen Schools, including our own lineage of Sōtō Zen. Many of its teachings underlie what we understand to be the ‘doctrines’ of Sōtō Zen: these include faith in the underlying Buddha nature of all beings, and a completely non-judgemental analysis of ‘ignorance’ –  a way of explaining why we make mistakes that does not divide into good and bad. Furthermore, the teaching on awakening that is central to Sōtō Zen and Dōgen: that enlightenment is simply realising there was never any division from the beginning, is already there in this very early sixth century Chinese commentary. Take this passage for example:

Because of not truly realising oneness with Suchness, there emerges an unenlightened mind and, consequently, its thoughts. These thoughts do not have any validity to be substantiated; therefore they are not independent of original enlightenment. It is like the case of a man who has lost his way: he is confused because of [his wrong sense of] direction. If he is freed from direction altogether, then there will be no such thing as going astray. It is the same with men: because of [the notion of] enlightenment, they are confused. But if they are freed from [the fixed notion of] enlightenment, then there will be no such thing as non-enlightenment.¹

This is not different from Great Master Dōgen’s teaching in Shushōgi : “All you have to do is realise that birth and death, as such, should not be avoided and they will cease to exist for then, if you can understand that birth and death are Nirvana itself, there is not only no necessity to avoid them but also nothing to search for that is called Nirvana.”²

I would like to offer an appreciation of the Awakening of Faith that brings out what for me is the real heart of this commentary. There are a few academic introductions that are useful in showing how the Awakening relates to other Scriptures, such as The Lankavatara Sutra, but I’d like to offer something here that shows how it is relevant today and brings out its devotional and practice-based intention, rather than seeing it as an example of early Buddhist philosophy.

Rather than doing a detailed commentary on the Awakening I’d like to pick out a few of the main themes:

What is faith and what do we take refuge in when we practise the Mahayana?

What is the relationship between delusion and awakening, and how can we account for ignorance?

How does our understanding of what awakening is express itself in practice, for example in the way we do meditation?

What is Faith and what do we take Refuge in when we Practice the Mahayana?

The Awakening begins with a ‘Prayer of Homage’ which both sets out the author’s intention, but most importantly tells us where this teaching comes from:

I take refuge in [the Buddha] who pervades all ten directions.

Whose actions are supreme, who is omniscient,

Whose form is unhindered and unimpeded –

The One of Great Compassion, who saves the world.

And I take refuge in the intrinsic reality and characteristics of his body,

The ocean of suchness – the dharma nature –

And the store of countless merits.

And I take refuge in those who practice in accordance with what is real.

I wish to have sentient beings

Eliminate doubts and abandon wrongly held views

And give rise to correct Mahayana Faith

Leaving the buddha-lineage uninterrupted.³

This is a form of taking refuge in the Three Treasures of Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, but the ‘dharma nature’ is something much wider than the spoken or written teachings of the Buddha. There is a double meaning of ‘dharma’⁴. Dharma can both be a guide intended to prevent people falling into delusion, and reality itself.

In the introductory verses the dharma nature is seen as “the ocean of suchness”. Suchness (Chinese ‘zhenru’) is an important word: in the translation used here it is rendered as “reality as it truly is without any conceptual overlay”. The original Sanskrit is ‘tathāta’, and is closely related to ‘Tathāgata’ one of the names of the Buddha meaning ‘thus come one’ – the Buddha appearing in the world to save beings. Tathāgatagarbha is often translated as Buddha nature.

The dharma nature is reality seen correctly – non-duality – and this leads to what ‘faith in the Mahayana’ meant for the author. It is faith in the true nature of beings and existence – not faith in the teachings of what later came to be seen as the Mahayana school, but faith in what is.

The term Mahayana, often translated as Great Vehicle, can be confusing. In some early Buddhist texts it was used in contrast to the term ‘Hinayana’ (translated as lesser vehicle) in a way that was somewhat polemical. Some of the traditions of Buddhism were labelled as lesser vehicle because they didn’t follow the new emphasis on the bodhisattva, beginning around 100 BC.⁵

The author of the Awakening had no intention of using the term Mahayana in a critical way. It’s clear that the term ‘Maha’ or great, is used to reflect the boundless good qualities of the dharma nature. The aim is not to encourage support of a particular school of Buddhism but to awaken a faith in the nature of existence:

There are three meanings. What are they? The first is that Mahayana’s intrinsic reality is great because the suchness of all dharmas is uniform, neither increasing nor decreasing.

The second is that its characteristics are great because the tathatagharba is replete with countless merits.

The third is that its functions are great because it is the producer of all good causes and effects.⁶

If you have read any other Mahayana Sutras like The Lotus Sutra, you’ll realise that they are full of superlatives. For example we often sing The immeasurable life of the Tathagata at memorials, which is a chapter of The Lotus Sutra. ‘Immeasurable’ can also be translated as ‘eternal’. And what’s being pointed out is not just that the life of the Buddha continues, but that it cannot be measured or conceived of. Scriptures and commentaries push at the limits of what can be imagined. I believe the purpose of all of these is to undermine our normal way of dividing things up and point to what is unlimited. What we take refuge in is not just the historical Buddha and his teachings as recorded, but reality that cannot be measured. As the Awakening puts it: “the dharma nature is extensive and vast and it pervades all sentient beings. This is because is it uniform and non-dual, cannot be conceived in terms of distinctions between this and that, and is ultimately quiescent”. ⁷

 Uchiyama Roshi wrote a commentary on Great Master Dōgen’s chapter of the Shōbōgenzō called Maka Hannya Haramitsu. This chapter of Shōbōgenzō is Dōgen’s version of the Scripture of Great Wisdom. And it starts with a title which means ‘Great Wisdom Sutra’. ‘Maka’ is the Japanese version of Maha which can mean great or superior, but in this context Kōshō Uchiyama calls it “Buddha dharma beyond comparison”. He goes on to say:

The Refuge as the Dharma is ‘the reality of life’ for each of us: “The Dharma is the mind of living beings” [quoted from the Awakening of Faith]. This use of the word mind isn’t like a separate brain, but it can be understood as the mind of all living beings, or one-mind…mind is life that includes all beings.⁸

To summarize we can say that the Refuge is reality itself seen as ‘Suchness’ – which cannot be defined by words, because any attempt to do so would limit it. But the Refuge is not just a blank emptiness – it is ‘great’, ‘Maha’ in having the qualities of producing good causes and effects; it is also ‘Maha’ or great in the sense of being incomparable and inexhaustible.

How does our actual practice of zazen fit with this sense of the Refuge? In zazen we do not aim at a particular state of mind, or try to purify our minds by rejecting some thoughts and encouraging others. We ground ourselves and sit within whatever arises, not seeing it as good or bad. At times we do have a valid sense that things are going ‘deeper’, but we are encouraged to just keep sitting; we don’t cling to the idea that may arise: “this is it, I’ve found it!” The point is often made by teachers that the aim is not to achieve something, but that the open heart-mind is itself the Buddha mind. When we do zazen we are ‘sitting-buddha’, not a separate being aiming at an image of what we think buddha is.

I find it helpful to consider that one description of our practice is translated as ‘serene reflection’ or ‘silent illumination.’ Rev. Master Kōten wrote a very helpful article on this, available on the OBC website: 9

This term was formulated by the 11^th Century Chinese Master Wanshi Shogaku. ‘Serene reflection’ is a translation of two Chinese characters, mo (J: moku) and chao (J: sho). The first character, mo, has an element in it that means black or darkness, making the whole character signify “dark, secret, silent, serene, profound” and also “to close the lips, to become silent”. The second character, chao, has an element meaning “the brightness of the sun”. The whole character translates as “to reflect light, to shine on, to illume or enlighten”, as well as “to reflect upon, to look upon, to have insight into”. The whole term thus becomes “serene reflection”, “silent illumination” or “luminescent darkness”.

It’s quite common for people to get disheartened when nothing obvious happens in meditation, especially during intensive retreats. But often the problem is more with a person’s expectations. They imagine some definite ‘thing’ will appear and make everything easier. But the point is to give up such expectations and keep sitting. For me this sometimes feels like ‘trusting the silence’. It can become very quiet in meditation, and the temptation can be to fill up the silence. But when I keep sitting, I have a subtle sense that the silence is not just an absence, but an opening up into something vaster. The silence itself becomes limitless. I believe that this is what is being pointed at when we talk of ‘silent illumination’ – the silence and the illumination are not two different things. This fits with the description of the Refuge as a dharma-nature that cannot be defined, but is still very much ‘present’.

The Refuge cannot be a thing fitting a definition, for that would restrict it, but seen in this context this is not a limitation at all. It is still ‘Maha’ –‘great’: able to support and maintain us in the most difficult times.

What is the relationship between Delusion and Awakening, and how can we account for Ignorance?

Stillness and activity are not separate

In talking about any kind of religious teaching, it is easy to come up with metaphors that end up in some kind of duality. We can say that we aim for stillness within the turbulence of life, for example. That has a level of truth to it, but it becomes awkward if we separate the difficult emotional times from the quieter times and say one is better than the other.  We can end up avoiding one and grasping onto the other. The remarkable thing about the Awakening is that from the beginning it includes apparent opposites, such as stillness and change, within one unified whole.

Within suchness or dharma-nature there is both stillness and activity:

The first is the gateway of the mind as suchness. The second is the gateway of the mind as arising and ceasing. Each of these two gateways contains all dharmas. Why? Because these two gateways are not separate from one another.10

This is the kernel of the Awakening. What appears to be in opposition: stillness and movement, wisdom and ignorance, were never opposed to each other. Many of the metaphors used later (such as the Ocean apparently disturbed by the wind of ignorance) are just different ways of saying the same thing.

The mind as suchness is precisely the dharma-gate reality, which is the overarching characteristic of the unified dharma realm. That is to say, the nature of the mind neither arises nor ceases.¹¹

Following on from this it is said that “It is solely due to false thoughts that there are distinctions between every dharma.”

The arising-and-ceasing mind exists because it is based on the tathāgatagarbha. That is to say, non-arising and non-ceasing combine with arising and ceasing and they are neither the same nor different. This is called the ‘alaya consciousness’.13 As the collector and producer of all dharma, this consciousness has two senses. What are they?

The first is awakening

The second is non awakening.12

The bottom line is that ‘suchness’ is the basis of all, including the mind seen as suchness and the mind seen as arising and passing, but the alaya consciousness is associated with the mind of changeableness. It is important to remember the aim is not to say that one ‘mind’ is better than another, but always that they are two aspects of the same thing. We are moving towards an explanation of why we seem to exist in confusion much of the time whilst simultaneously being within ‘suchness’ – also known as Buddha nature.

Awakening means that the intrinsic reality of the mind [as suchness] is free from conceiving. To be free from the characteristics of conceiving is to be identical to the realm of space: it is to be all-pervasive.¹⁴

Awakening and non-awakening are not separate

 Awakening and non-awakening are both the same and different, and there are a series of analogies to try and explain this:

The characteristic of sameness can be compared to various kinds of pottery vessels, which all share the intrinsic characteristic of being [composed of] atoms. In the same way, various kinds of illusion of karmic action, whether untainted or ignorant, all share the intrinsic characteristic of being [composed of] suchness.

On the basis of this idea of suchness, a sutra therefore says that all sentient beings have always constantly abided in and entered nirvana.¹⁵

All action is of the nature of suchness in that all pots are made of clay, but there are differences because of the ways in which people grasp hold of different illusions and create different kinds of suffering.

This last sentence may be familiar. This is the basis of the Sōtō Zen teaching of ‘original enlightenment’ (Jap. Hongaku Shiho). The nature of our minds is ‘awakened’: it is like space, in that space (as conceived at the time) makes room for everything – there are inherently no obstructions. But if this is true, why do we often make serious mistakes?

This is precisely the basis of the Kōan that Dōgen struggled with and delineated in his Rules for Meditation, which begins “Why are training and enlightenment differentiated since the truth is universal?” If we are of the nature of enlightenment, do we need to train at all? Dōgen was very aware that such a version of original enlightenment, popular in the Tendai School which he trained in as a teenager, had its problems. It could lead to a form of ‘naturalism’ in which it is assumed that because a person is inherently enlightened, everything they do is just fine. Considering the violence of the times and the disputes between Buddhist sects that occasionally broke out into violence too, it was clear in early 13^th century Japan that there was plenty of unenlightened action leading to real suffering.

The author of the Awakening clearly did advocate serious practice. The six paramitas must be practised as well as the meditation of ‘stopping and seeing’ (Samadhi and Vipassana). But of course, one of the purposes of the Awakening is to explain why we don’t always act from the awakened mind; that there are differences. So the author goes on to explain that there is ‘inherent awakening’ and ‘final awakening’. Many Mahayana scriptures use the analogy of eyesight to explain this. We are generally all born with the capacity to see, but if our eyesight was harmed in some way (by an accident for example) we would not be able to see clearly for a while. So even though there are differences in people’s clarity of vision, all have an inherent capacity to ‘see’.

How ignorance and delusion are still of the nature of purity: the analogy of the great ocean

The author of the Awakening has so far said that the mind of suchness and the mind of arising and ceasing are inseparable. So what can be labelled ‘ignorance’ must also be an aspect of the mind of suchness. The author then uses a series of analogies to get this across:

…Since the characteristic of ignorance is not separate from the nature of awakening, the mind and consciousnesses are both indestructible and destructible.

This is like the great ocean, where water moves in waves due to the wind. The characteristics of the water and the wind [as waves] are not separate from one another. Since it is not in the nature of water to move [by itself], its characteristic of movement will cease if the wind ceases, without its wetness ever being destroyed. And it is because, in the same way, the intrinsically pristine mind of sentient beings is moved by the wind of ignorance. Both the mind and ignorance lack characteristics of shape, and they are not separate from one another. Since it is not in the nature of the mind to move [by itself], its continuous flow will cease if ignorance ceases, without the nature of cognition ever being destroyed.16

I find this an exquisite way to look at the relationship between ‘delusion’ and ‘awakening’. It is easy to begin Buddhist practice with a sense that “there are things I need to get rid of in order to reach the good stuff”. This is one of the ways our minds have been conditioned. But if we persevere with practice we find this model doesn’t work. We can find a temporary peace through learning concentration, but the ‘bad’ stuff – the awkward and bizarre thoughts, the fears and desires– they just keep arising. We then really get to grips with what it means to “neither try to think, nor try not to think”.

In sitting, there cannot be even the most subtle pushing away of what we ‘don’t like’. It is then that this kind of analogy begins to make sense. The awkward things we don’t want are still of the nature of water, of purity. Once we start to realise this the sense of agitation will cease. In a way we can take it a step further and say that there is no need to try and stop the waves appearing in the ocean as they are just an aspect of the nature of water which is suchness.

In part two of this appreciation of the Awakening of Faith, I will look at how the author explains the arising of ignorance and then move on to the explanation of how the bodhisattva practises by following the six Paramitas, especially the practice of meditation.

Notes

1. The Awakening of Faith. Trans. Yoshito S. Hakeda, (Numata Center for Buddhist Translation & Research, 2006), p. 43.
2. Great Master Dōgen, Shushōgi, in Zen is Eternal Life, (Shasta Abbey, 4th ed. 1999), p. 94.
3. Treatise on Awakening Mahayana Faith, (attributed to Asvaghosa), ed. and trans. John Jorgensen, Dan Lusthaus, John Makeham and Mark Strange, (OUP 2019), kindle version p. 61.
4. Trans. Yoshito S. Hakeda.
5. Harvey, Peter. An Introduction to Buddhism, Second Edition, Teachings, History and Practice, (Cambridge University Press, 2012), p. 91.
6. Trans. J Jorgensen et al, p. 66.
7. Trans. Yoshito S. Hakeda
8. Deepest Practice, Deepest Wisdom: Three Fascicles from Shōbōgenzō with Commentary, by Kōshō Uchiyama (Author), Tom Wright (Author, Translator), Shohaku Okumura (Wisdom Publications, 2018), p. 10.
9. https://obcon.org/dharma/essays-on-practice/serene-reflection/
10. Trans. J Jorgensen et al, p. 68.
11. Trans. Yoshito S. Hakeda
12. Trans. Yoshito S. Hakeda 71.
13. The alaya is often translated as ‘storehouse consciousness’ and is like a repository of past memories. It was used as a concept a lot by the Yogacara School of Mahayana Buddhism. But most academics say the author of the Awakening of Faith wrote it before separate schools existed. Along with the alaya, this analysis adds an aspect of mind called ‘manas’ which would translate in modern psychology as a sense of ego. When we take the view of manas as real, we reinforce the strong sense of a permanent self. It seems there are things ‘out there’ in the world that we either want to have or are averse to. This can lead to a kind of ‘feedback loop’. The more we grasp onto objects, the more it feels like we have a solid self, and the more we grasp. The solution is meditation and awareness.
14. Trans. J Jorgensen et al, p. 72.
15. Yoshito S. Hakeda. p. 82.
16. Trans. Yoshito S. Hakeda p. 76.