Berwyn Watson, Rev. Master

In part one of this article I talked about how the Awakening of Faith saw the Mahayana, and dealt especially with the question of ‘what do we take refuge in when we follow the Mahayana?’ The three refuges of Buddha, Dharma and Sangha were seen as different aspects of ‘suchness’, translated sometimes as ‘reality at it is’. And we started to look at how this non-dualistic view saw aspects of training, such as stillness and activity, delusion and enlightenment, which are often regarded as opposites.

As promised, I’d like to go into more detail now on the last two questions I mentioned:

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?

Ignorance as the cause of suffering

We’ve already seen how the Awakening of Faith does not make a real division between the dualities of stillness and activity, or even ignorance and enlightenment. And yet it acknowledges differences in people’s training, and that many are bound up in samsara, or a cycle of suffering that seems endless. There has to be an acknowledgement of suffering and some way of explaining the causes of suffering.

Of course this was seen as one of the main teachings of the historical Buddha: that suffering (dukkha) existed, and the cause of suffering was grasping. A large chunk of the second section of the Awakening could be described as a more detailed explanation of how we cause suffering for ourselves. During the Buddha’s lifetime he unpacked some of his teaching on the causes of suffering and expressed them in the doctrine of ‘Dependent Origination.’ This teaching used various lists of several links in a chain of cause and effect, for example:

[…] [T]hey experience these feelings by repeated contact through the six sense-bases; feeling conditions craving; craving conditions clinging; clinging conditions becoming; becoming conditions birth; birth conditions aging and death, sorrow, lamentation, sadness and distress.¹

The point is that there is a circle of cause and effect; whilst you could say that grasping causes suffering, grasping itself is dependent on the six senses and feeling. The way out is to stop the vicious circle at some point, breaking one of the links in the chain, leading to renunciation, understanding and eventual liberation.

The Awakening uses a version of dependent arising, but has a different emphasis, making the point that before we grasp onto things we first have to create the sense of a separate self, existing in a world. For there to be a sense of ‘I want this’ or ‘I don’t want this’, there needs to be a sense of a self that can have wishes, and can achieve them by interacting with a ‘world out there’. The author is saying that this separation isn’t real either, but based on ignorance.

…it is said that on the basis of the ālaya consciousness there is ignorance and non-awakening, which give rise to the perceiver, the presenter, and the apprehender of perceptual fields. These in turn give rise to thought-moments in a continuous flow.²

This is dense stuff, so it’s worth looking at Hakeda’s translation too:

[The mentality] which emerges in the state of nonenlightenment, which [incorrectly] perceives and reproduces [the world of objects] and, conceiving that the [reproduced] world of objects is real, continues to develop [deluded] thoughts, is what we define as mind.³

What follows is a detailed description of the various aspects of this mind. But what is the main point of this sort of analysis? I would say it is to explain how a sense of separation can emerge from a sentient being’s mind whilst it remains essentially pure.

At some point the ability to process information from the senses, to remember what has been perceived and derive a sense of continuity from these, becomes the sense of a separate self that feels it must have some things, and avoid other things. But this whole edifice is based on a misunderstanding.

Therefore, the three worlds are illusory constructs, created by the mind alone. The perceptual fields of the six sensory and conceptual fields do not exist apart from the mind. Why? There are no characteristics to be apprehended for the mind does not see the mind, since all dharmas are produced from the mind’s giving rise to false thought and since all discriminations are precisely the mind’s discriminating itself.⁴

It is important to understand that when the Awakening says that the worlds we create are “illusory constructs created by the mind alone”, it is not talking about what is called ‘subjective idealism’ in Western Academic philosophy.⁵ It is not addressing the question of ‘how can I prove there is a world out there – could it all be imagined?’, but the question of the causes of suffering. Why is it that we feel separate? Why is there this sense of ‘us and them’ that can be so strong, and the feeling that we must control or fight against the world to prove ourselves?

I have found this sort of explanation of suffering useful in my own practice. At times I have to acknowledge just how wrong my views are, and it helps with this process to see that there is no blame whatsoever involved.

For example, I’m sometimes in the embarrassing position of sitting in the zendo building up judgemental thoughts about fellow monks. What Scriptures like the Awakening do is remind me I am totally mistaken in doing this. This may be a surprising thing to say, but consider: not only is it a misunderstanding to judge other people based on my own limited perceptions of a situation (because I don’t know what’s going on for others), it is also wrong to conceive of myself as a separate being that sees beings as fundamentally ‘other’. The sense that there is an ‘I’ that can stand back and separate itself from existence, and put itself on a moral ‘high ground’ is based on an illusion. We are always, already, part of existence. If we judge others, we judge existence and ourselves.

The act of judgement is based on the separation, founded on ignorance. As the Awakening describes it: “…all discriminations are precisely the mind’s discriminating itself.” The Awakening offers a startling view of unity, that is in such direct contrast to my own limited views, that at times it acts as a real ‘wake-up call’; but it does this in a way that adds no further judgement.

I think this is why many Scriptures describe the cause of suffering as ignorance, and also why they are reluctant to say how this ‘ignorance’ started up in the first place. In the Awakening, ignorance is seen to be without origin. “This is explained as beginningless ignorance because thought-moment after thought-moment have always followed one another in a continuous flow.”⁶

This is also why in our Sange verse, that is read whenever we formally take the Precepts, we say:

All wrong actions, behaviour and karma perpetrated by me from time immemorial have been and are, caused by greed, anger and delusion which have no beginning, born of my body, mouth and will; I now make full and open confession thereof.

Rev. Master Jiyu-Kennett, said a similar thing in the commentary she wrote on the Precepts: “By accident someone made the course of karma; it is not intentionally set in motion;”⁷

It is easy to resort to blame, which attempts to isolate some ‘thing’ out from the flow of interconnected reality and say ‘this thing, or this person, is the problem.’ It’s a simplification which is inherently destructive because it takes as its basis the separation that causes the whole circle of suffering in the first place. On the other hand to acknowledge there is no real ‘first cause’ and call it ‘beginningless ignorance’ allows us to move forward. We just acknowledge that we have made mistakes because of our misunderstandings and learn from them.

When the Awakening says the three worlds are illusory constructs created by the mind alone, it is talking of the worlds of desire, form, and formlessness.⁸ These referred to all the possible worlds we could end up in based on the nature of our attachments. Rev. Master Haryo has said in one talk that at some point in our training, we have to “give up whole universes”. This isn’t so much giving up a sense of how science sees this world, (ie. that we live on a planet in a solar system) but how we see ourselves in relation to this world. If we fall into separation by accident, but then continue to reinforce that by holding onto ideals, we do live in a self-created world of samsara as everything that happens is interpreted through the filter of separation and tends to reinforce a strong sense of self. In order to ‘give up whole worlds’ however, we simply need to drop the grasping onto thoughts in the moment. The Awakening makes it clear that to be ‘awakened’ is to be aware of thought moments, not only seeing that they arise and pass, but going on to “…awaken to the fact that as the mind [appears to] arise initially, it has no characteristic of [initial arising”]. This is seeing the real nature of the mind “that neither arises nor ceases.”⁹ So, although giving up holding onto views of the worlds is difficult in the abstract, the actual work is just that of practice – of continual letting go.

Going from ignorance to awakening

So the Awakening deliberately avoids looking for a cause of ignorance, but how does it explain how we get from ignorance to awakening? Here the Awakening uses the metaphor of ‘habituation’ or ‘permeation’.

‘Habituation’ is like an ordinary piece of clothing that in reality has no scent; but it will acquire a fragrance if someone perfumes it. …The pure dharma of suchness in reality has no defilements; it only has defiled characteristics because of habituation by ignorance.¹⁰

The point of the metaphor is that it allows the person to be neutral – just like clothing which can carry different scents. And because the permeation by suchness is the primary ‘scent’ if you like, it wins out in the end.

How does habituation give rise to pure dharmas without interruption? Because there is the dharma of suchness, it is able to habituate ignorance. Because of the power of [suchness] to habituate causes and conditions, [sentient beings’] false minds are made to weary of the sufferings of [the cycle of] birth and death and to take pleasure in seeking nirvana. Because there are causes and conditions for these false minds to weary of [the cycle of birth and death] and to seek nirvana, they then habituate suchness.¹¹

The way sentient beings progress to spiritual understanding varies according to their potential and their background. Those who have ‘virtuous roots’ become “weary of the sufferings of birth and death; they arouse the aspiration to supreme bodhi (awakening); they manage to encounter buddhas, become their attendants and make offerings to them; and they cultivate a commitment to faith.”¹²

Those with less developed virtuous roots still find their way forward. They can “arouse this aspiration [for bodhi] by seeing the physical image of the Buddha. Some will arouse their aspiration to awakening by making offerings to the monastic community…. Some will arouse this aspiration by learning from others.”¹³

Once this faith, or aspiration for bodhi, is awakened, it leads to a mind that is focused and mindful “of the dharma of suchness”, which “takes pleasure in amassing all good deeds”, which “is a mind of great compassion” that “wishes to eliminate the sufferings of all sentient beings”.¹⁴

Having developed this mind, several skilful means – or methods of training – are used to help bodhisattvas on the path. These include what we call ‘Sange’ translated as “feeling ashamed of and repenting one’s transgressions”, making offerings to the Three Jewels (of Buddha, Dharma and Sangha), and making great vows to “liberate all sentient beings, without exception.”¹⁵

All these practices establish the trainee-bodhisattvas at the stage of ‘correct faith’, but there is a further stage of “Understanding and Practicing the way”, which is achieved through the Six Paramitas, including the practice of meditation.

The practice of the paramitas and meditation

 The Author makes it clear that bodhisattvas practice the paramitas as an expression of their understanding of “the dharma of suchness”. Here is their description of the first of the six paramitas.

Through the dharma of suchness, they profoundly understand what appears before them, since what they cultivate is free from characteristics. They conform to and practice dana-paramita (the perfection of giving) because they know that the dharma nature is intrinsically devoid of greed. They conform to and practice sila-paramita (the perfection of discipline) because they know that the dharma nature is devoid of defilement and free from the errors of the five desires… They conform to and practice ksanti-paramita (the perfection of forbearance) because they know that the dharma nature is devoid of suffering and free from vexation…¹⁶

We often think we need to practice in order to achieve something. It’s a good motivation perhaps to practice generosity because it’s a Buddhist thing to do, and you may become a kinder person, but the Awakening approaches it in a different way. Because reality has the nature of being “intrinsically devoid of greed”, the paramita of giving is practiced. It is a different motivation that is based on recognising the sufficiency of the situation. On one level we would of course give things to fulfil a lack – such as offering food to a food bank, so those who are hungry can eat. But on a deeper level there is not the sense of “I must do something or else all these awful things may happen”. It is more like how Great Master Dōgen puts it in his commentary on the Precept “Do only good. The dharma of Shakyamuni’s enlightenment is the dharma of all existence.” We practice the dharma of existence not because it is lacking, but because it is ‘good-doing’; we are not separate from this existence and this includes the wish to help, the wish to give.

The Awakening is pointing out a path that avoids both complacency and over-concern. If we act on insufficiency and anxiety about the results, it can lead to ‘burn out’. We assume that without our specific intervention everything will go wrong (which often makes us more important than we are). The solution is to act from the place of the dharma nature, that is “intrinsically devoid of greed”.

To avoid complacency we are exhorted to remember the bodhisattva vow to save all beings. The author asks that we practice the gateway of giving through offering possessions and wealth, through offering encouragement and teaching: “All this is because one ought not to crave or seek fame, profit or veneration; instead one should be mindful only of benefitting oneself and others and of being dedicated to bodhi (awakening).”¹⁷

Meditation

The fifth paramita Dhyana Paramita (the perfection of meditation) is covered in a separate section on the Five Gateways of Practice, and is called “the gateway of calming and discernment.”¹⁸

This offers a wonderful insight into how meditation was practised all that time ago. Essentially it has the two aspects of samatha (or cessation) and vipassana (or discernment). From early on in many Buddhist traditions these were seen as types of meditation practice to do separately, and even now we have vipassana training for example, but the author is in line with our tradition and sees both calming and discernment as essential. “Whether walking, standing, sitting, lying or rising, he should practice both ‘cessation’ and ‘clear observation’ side by side.”¹⁹

It would be anachronistic to see the author’s approach as the same as that of serene reflection (silent illumination): a distinct Sōtō zen tradition did not exist when the Awakening was written, but there are important insights into our own tradition that come from studying this approach.

Samatha: the practice of cessation or calming

The instruction for ‘calming’ (samatha) reads like Rules for Meditation in places. There is no focus on breath or thoughts of the past:

All thoughts, as soon as they are conjured up, are to be discarded, and even the thought of discarding them is to be put away, for all things are essentially transcending thoughts and are not to be created from moment to moment nor to be extinguished from moment to moment.

If concentration lapses it can be brought back to correct mindfulness which is: “one should know that there is only mind; there are no external perceptual fields.”²⁰ Maintaining this in all actions one finds entry to the samadhi on Suchness, and based on this “realizes the oneness of the world of reality (dharmadhatu)”²¹

Meditation is bringing oneself back to how things are: that dharmas are neither created nor destroyed. All thoughts and feelings are treated as ‘mind only’ in the sense that they are a result of the senses interacting with a sense of self – they are not held onto or pushed away. If the meditator finds themselves caught up in fame and gain or various kinds of emotional instability the advice is to be diligent in abiding in correct thought: “neither grasping nor attaching himself to [anything]”²²

But this section follows with a warning: “…people’s mind will sink into [inattention] or give rise to laziness if they cultivate only calming’]…and will set great compassion at a far remove”.²³

It is not enough to find a kind of peace for oneself through calming techniques. Discernment must be practised at the same time to maintain our connection with all beings.

Vipassana: the practice of discernment

 The practice of discernment, or clear observation, begins with an awareness of impermanence and how this can lead to suffering for many. Seeing the suffering of others, the vow emerges: “may I, to the end of the future, by applying limitless expedient means, help all suffering sentient beings so that they may obtain the bliss of nirvana, the ultimate goal.”²⁴

This is the cure for a kind of quietistic laziness that would result if only calming was practiced. Except when we are formally sitting in meditation, we do need to “investigate what ought and ought not to be done”. The author is encouraging us to hold both sides of a situation at once. “That is, even when one is mindful that the self-nature of dharmas does not arise, one is also mindful of the combination of causes and conditions, of good and bad karmic action, of the recompense of pain and pleasure, and of how they are neither lost nor perish”.²⁵

Even if we have a sense of the unborn nature of dharmas, we still cannot ignore cause and effect. This is an attempt to teach something quiet subtle. At times there can be a sense of ‘there is nothing from the first’. That none of ‘my’ problems were ever substantial, but were merely imagined. This can be described as saying ‘there is neither birth nor death.’ But this is still one-sided. It is still true that all our actions have consequences. So we perhaps have to say, “this very life and death IS the Buddha’s Own Life” as great Master Dōgen puts it in the Shōji chapter of the Shōbōgenzō.²⁶

 In the Chan tradition that emerged from 5^th century China, the formal meditation practice incorporated elements of samadhi and vipassana using terms that can be translated as ‘silence’ and ‘illumination’, to become the silent illumination or serene reflection school by the 11^th century. ²⁷

In the Guidepost of Silent Illumination by Wanshi Shogaku, a 12^th century master, you can see how ‘calming’ and ‘insight’ are seen to be mutually supporting (my italics added).

When wonder exists in serenity, all achievement is forgotten in illumination.

What is this wonder? Alertly seeing through confusion

Is the way of silent illumination and the origin of subtle radiance.

Responding without falling into achievement, speaking without involving listeners,

The ten thousand forms majestically glisten and expound the dharma.

All objects certify it, every one in dialogue.

Dialoguing and certifying, they respond appropriately to each other;

But if illumination neglects serenity then aggressiveness appears.

Certifying and dialoguing, they respond to each other appropriately;

But if serenity neglects illumination, murkiness leads to wasted dharma.²⁸

 Our own practice of zazen has a simplicity that I feel should be preserved. It doesn’t seem to work to ‘mix and match’ different techniques, so I wouldn’t recommend trying to practice in detail the particular forms of meditation the Awakening talks about. It was obviously written as a general manual for those wanting to learn about the Mahayana, not specifically as meditation instruction.

And yet I find it useful to remind myself that ‘calming’ and ‘insight’ have always been part of the Buddhist tradition, and without both, my own practice could be unbalanced. It seems important not to become overly attached to either states of calmness, or the times when we feel we’ve experienced great insights. There is a sense of continually and gently adjusting the practice, in a way that one monk compares to sailing a yacht. Trimming the sails just enough to keep on course.²⁹

The foundation of our practice is that we bring ourselves back to what is, right here and now. So our zazen practice expresses our understanding of ‘awakening’ as returning to what is (called ‘suchness’ in the Awakening). We could also call this ‘undivided existence’, where the dualities of movement and stillness, ignorance and enlightenment no longer make sense. The Awakening offers us a view of ‘All is one, and all is different’, as Rev. Master Jiyu put it, where our unique forms of suffering are acknowledged but never seen as separate from the Truth.

The author’s wish was “to have sentient beings eliminate doubts and abandon wrongly held views, and give rise to correct Mahayana faith, leaving the buddha-lineage uninterrupted”.³⁰

I find it moving to think that this teaching from 6^th century China still helps me in my practice now, despite the fifteen-hundred years between us, and that the buddha-lineage does indeed continue. Studying this work has affirmed my faith in the Mahayana, and I hope this brief appreciation may encourage others to study it too. My grateful thanks to all who practice and pass on their teaching.

Notes

1.  Dīgha Nikāya Sutta 1, the Brahmajala Sutta, verse 3.71. Source: Wikipedia.
2. Treatise on Awakening Mahayana Faith, (attributed to Asvaghosa), ed. and trans. John Jorgensen, Dan Lusthaus, John Makeham and Mark Strange, (OUP 2019), all pages from kindle version, p. 83.
3. The Awakening of Faith, Translated by Yoshito S. Hakeda, (Numata Center for Buddhist Translation & Research, 2006), p. 47.. Jorgensen, p. 85 – 86.
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
5. Jorgensen, footnotes 576b-c.
6. Kyojukaimon and commentary, in Serene Reflection Meditation, Shasta Abbey Press (date?#)
7. One of Buddhist cosmologies, in which the cosmos is divided into three parts. The first and last of these three represent attachment to the senses, and are undesirable. Those in the second level have a body but do not cling to the world of illusion and senses. In Zen practice the three worlds are also considered levels or dimensions of consciousness. From http://www.chinabuddhismencyclopedia.com/en/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=Three+Worlds.
8. Jorgensen, p. 28 & p. 30.
9.  Jorgensen, p. 92.
10.  Jorgensen, p. 95.
11. Jorgensen, p. 114.
12. Jorgensen, p. 115
13. Jorgensen, p. 115-116
14. Jorgensen, p. 118.
15. Jorgensen, p. 120.
16. Jorgensen, p. 126.
17. Jorgensen, p. 125.
18. Hakeda, see also Jorgensen p. 133.
19. Hakeda, p. 96.
20. Hakeda, p. 97.
21. Hakeda, p. 98.
22. Hakeda, p. 132
23. Hakeda, p. 101, p. 133.
24. Hakeda, p. 133.. Zen is Eternal Life, (Shasta Abbey Press, 1999) p. 197.
25. 27. See the OBC Journal article by Rev. Master Koten Serene reflection meditation: https://obcon.org/dharma/essays-on-practice/serene-reflection/
26. 28. Dan Leighton trans. In Cultivating the Empty Field, (North Point Press 1991), p. 52.
27. 29. Rev. Master Meian, Journal of the Order of Buddhist Contemplatives, Spring 2013, p.1–9 Serene Reflection Meditation,
28. 30. Jorgensen, p. 61-62.