styrofoamdog

Those who read the Buddhist sutras will know that none of these things qualify as samadhi or dhyana.

Charles Luk's works are all excellent, not to mention master Hanshan's commentaries. I would try getting this book through an inter-library loan. It appears that some libraries do have this book, so you can probably borrow it for free, although it may take some time for the book to arrive. WorldCat results: Ch'an and Zen Teachings #3

The original term may be a common Sanskrit one that means something like "ordinary ignorant person." The equivalent Chinese term is fan fu (凡夫). The key component fan (凡) means "ordinary," "common," or "worldly."

Yes, these books are very different, and Working Toward Enlightenment and To Realize Enlightenment are also packed with useful information (but they definitely assume familiarity with cultivation methods and meditation). William Bodri and Nan Huai-Chin have pretty different teaching styles, and if you become familiar with the materials of one, it will help you appreciate the other. Nan Huai-Chin's teachings are steeped ancient Chinese culture, and his teaching style is very traditional and poetic. William Bodri is more modern, and has the perspective of a westerner. They are kind of from two opposite worlds, but of course the basic teachings of Zen, meditation methods, and the stages will not be radically different. It's more like two physics professors with different teaching styles.

The Samdhinirmocana Sutra (Scripture on the Explication of Underlying Meaning) is really excellent. I can't recommend that one enough. The Numata Center version in the link above is the best translation so far.

So little of this thread has any bearing on the actual practice of the Dharma in meditation, and most of the comments here are speculation. What was spoken by this teacher is correct to some extent, but if you do not actually follow that path and cultivation the realization of these truths, then it's just a poison. Again, no matter how enlightened someone is, if they give you instructions, and you do not actually carry through with them, then your practice is in vain. No intellectual understanding can take the place of true realization through practice.

There are three principle translations that I am aware of: Translation by Charles Luk. This is available in PDF format online for free (legally), but is a bit older, and is not in a very convenient format for reading. Some notes by Hanshan Deqing from the Ming Dynasty are included. First translation by the Buddhist Text Translation Society. This is just the sutra text, and there are some 8 or 9 additional volumes available of Master Hsuan Hua's commentary, which were published in the same "series". Second translation by the Buddhist Text Translation Society. This is meant to replace the previous version, and is a completely new translation. It includes a little commentary by Master Hsuan Hua. Of the three texts, I like #3 the most. It is in a very nice format, and represents the "latest and greatest" of the Shurangama Sutra translations. When it came out, it was even given a little website: http://surangama.drba.org.

This is actually very typical for laypeople in the Theravada tradition. If you check out the old Pali suttas as well, laypeople are often just given the simplest instructions, and not expected to meditate, or have any interest in meditation. In other words, if you are a layperson, your traditional role is mostly to make merit by supporting the monastic community. In East Asian and Tibetan traditions there is little difference between the ideals for monastics and laypeople. This is because Mahayana teachings often do not draw any distinction between the two, and both are expected and encouraged to practice the bodhisattva path, which includes meditation. As a result, meditation is more common and encouraged for laypeople.

I think a lot of this has to do with the interpretation of "transforms." If someone understands this as meaning that it has 100% transformed, then that may be a problem. "Transforming" would emphasize the continuation of the process, and that might be one possibility. The way I see it, jing actually does transform into qi, qi into shen, and shen into emptiness. Otherwise these things would always be there, and to become an immortal, it is necessary to refine coarse energy (e.g. jing) into ever more subtle and perfected energy spiritual energy (e.g. shen). But this is a continuous and lengthy process. And even if someone attained immortality in this life, they would still have some jing and qi. In the Buddhist view as well, through meditation one refines sustaining qi to reward-body qi, and then to seed qi (the qi of karmic seeds in the Alayavijnana). Each level is progressively more difficult to access, more rarified, and more powerful. Still, even after attaining the highest levels of dhyana, life in the ordinary world means that some sustaining qi will always be present. Since the body contains tens of thousands of qi channels, there is always some movement or flow. I would regard emptiness as being similar to clear and empty consciousness. All the previous stages are defined by forms of matter and energy that were in duality with the mind of the meditator. Emptiness then refers to a stage in which the three previous forms of energy merge with the mind ("returning"), which then operates in such a unified and luminous clarity that it seems utterly "empty." I do not believe that this refers to any "disappearance" of energy.

A real enlightened master doesn't put up a website that constantly claims that he is an enlightened spiritual master. This is basic to all Buddhist schools, including Jodo Shinshu. In no less than the Diamond Sutra, it is stated quite bluntly that even a srotaapanna will not go around claiming to be a srotaapanna (much less an arhat, an advanced bodhisattva, or a buddha).

Guys, this guy is NOT an enlightened master. Energy healing? Spiritual protection circles? Does a supremely enlightened being teach the New Age topics on his website? Apparently he was enlightened after attending a "personal growth seminar." I guess someone needs to be the new Max Christensen or David Verdesi, though.

Even over a thousand years ago, the word hua still meant "transform" or "change." Also, I just want to point out that there is no past tense in this passage, so I would not translate hua as "transformed," but rather as "transforms." It may just be clumsy wording in the original Chinese work, as these matters are not always easy to convey. Ideally, every part of a text is understood when translating, but interpretations should not stray from the original language. That is the problem with so many coffee table Daodejing translations, all saying something completely different. The interpretations of this passage seem to assume that it's an all-or-nothing affair. That is to say, when jing transforms into qi, there is no jing left. That is not the case at all. The same goes for the third line. When shen transforms into emptiness, it's not that all the shen is gone. It just means that shen is transforming into emptiness. Shen returning to emptiness seems to just describe the end result of all the previous transformations.

The version of the White Skeleton Meditation that William Bodri teaches is the one taught by Nan Huai-Chin, which in turn comes from a dhyana manual that was translated by Kumarajiva in the early 5th century, Chanmi Yaofa Jing (禪祕要法經). Not sure what the original Sanskrit title was, though. The method is not quite the same as the formula used in some sutras that are in the Pali Canon. It is more complex and there are many variations and different ways to practice.

Many Zen masters attained the Dharmakaya, but few really attained the Sambhogakaya. When people get some taste of an "empty" state of mind, they tend to think this is the ultimate, and become attached to it. The Mahayana method is difficult because it is basically non-abiding, a state that is not really a state, because it is literally inconceivable.

Indeed. Those first two books have gone out of print, and are now rare. They are gems, though, and contain so much interesting and advanced material. His book of conversations with Peter Senge from MIT is also very good, and covers anapana quite a bit. Even years ago on Tao Bums I posted my old anapana meditation reference, as I poured through these books looking for the details.

No matter who you ask in this forum, someone will have a different explanation of it, but that someone probably does not have the same insight as the Buddha in the Diamond Sutra. Originally the monks in India and other countries would recite the sutras frequently as a form of cultivation. If someone reads a sutra like this regularly, then it is pretty similar, as long as the process is continuous. If you want to know how to develop what the Buddha is talking about in the Diamond Sutra, well, that's the basic purpose of that sutra itself: to teach Subhuti how to develop the mind of unsurpassed and complete enlightenment. If you try to find a "Cliff Notes" version or a summary written by someone else, then that's not the same thing as studying the sutra directly. It doesn't say that one shouldn't produce a mind that is not aware of anything. It just says that the mind should not dwell in anything. All day long thoughts and images arise in the mind. Some seem to exist there for only a split second, while others seem to hang over us or obstruct mental clarity. No matter what, though, these are basically illusory and transient. This is the same principle of non-abiding that runs through the whole sutra. Actually, this is the basic method prescribed in nearly all the old Mahayana sutras: non-abiding.

These are some translations I've made over the last few years: Lapis Lazuli Texts: Translations There are a few short Daoist classics in here (Baizi Bei and Qingjing Jing), but most of the focus is on Buddhist sutras from the Chinese Buddhist canon. I've been starting to write a few articles as well, but that effort is definitely in the early stages. The end goal is a nice set of freely-available translations and some articles on meditation and cultivation to supplement these. I'll stop plugging my own site now. Rulu also has a nice site with translations of mostly Mahayana texts, including some rare ones that most scholars on the matter aren't even aware of: SutrasMantras.info Rulu has many translations, and it must have taken quite a long time to make all of them. I think there are only a very few people who are doing their own translation projects like this. They are very much DIY efforts.

Please don't drag down the level of discussion by calling people stupid and foolish. From the few isolated quotes reproduced here, second-hand and paraphrased, it is difficult to say a whole lot about the matter. However, it does seem to appear from the quotations that the teacher is describing a method of cultivating emptiness, and some of his statements are definitely similar to methods in the Avatamsaka Sutra. He does not appear to be advocating that people adopt a "notion of nothingness."

The reason that the Buddha taught no-self was to allow people to let go of this impermanent self that is created by the mind. Apart from the mind, self never exists, and the skandha of vijnana is the only thing that sustains it. Even after death, a new intermediate body is created by the mind, through grasping and the power of karma. It will then find a new body in one of the various realms of existence in accordance with this. If anyone considers himself a Buddhist but doubts reincarnation, they should read about yoga in the bardo state, because this explains the exact steps of dying, and the stages between lives. There are practices at various points in this process, so it was important that they were recorded. There is a deviant nihilistic view that is basically the same as what was rejected by the Buddhist sutras, that the doctrine of no-self implies that there is no reincarnation, or that nothing even matters. This makes no sense, and could not be consistent with Buddhist views. This is in strong contrast to the very basis of the earliest Buddhism and the tradition of shramanas that it came out of in India. For Buddhists and all the shramanas, karma, cyclic existence, and escape from it are very fundamental. Now in the West, there are some people calling themselves Buddhists who believe that there is no rebirth and therefore that no karma will follow them. These people are clinging to a notion of emptiness, and denying the other fundamental principle of karma and conditioned existence. Without karma and conditioned existence, Buddhism would be no different from nihilism. Without cyclic existence, there would be no need to practice Buddhism because even the worst murderers would enter extinction upon death. The reason for the teaching of no-self is to break up the false self, which exists provisionally without any absolute existence, just as any other conditioned phenomena (including everything in the universe). The basis of this is the unconditioned reality that is the substratum of both mind and karmic existence. The unconditioned can be spoken of in negative terms such as emptiness and no-self, but it is not really lacking anything. It can also be spoken of as the True Self, Buddha-nature, or Tathagatagarbha, or simply the Buddha, to use positive terms. For example, the Nirvana Sutra speaks of it as Self, permanence, existence, bliss. The Lotus Sutra teaches similarly that the Buddha taught no-self, in order for people to reach realization of the eternal Buddha and enlightenment. There are also neutral terms such as Tathagata, thus, such, thusness, suchness, equality, and simply this. It's not so difficult, but it becomes difficult when people want simple answers to cling to. When people wanted to cling to a notion of a self, the Buddha taught no-self. When people began to cling to no-self and emptiness, he taught the True Self and Buddha-nature. He always turns back people who dwell in various notions, to point them to the truth. Don't cling to every word, read between the lines and study deeply. The problem today is that people read a little bit and then start publishing books, misleading people. This happened with Alan Watts writing naive things like the idea that Zen Buddhism denies reincarnation. Things like this can mislead an entire generation. If people read the Buddhist sutras directly, then Buddhism will definitely improve in the West. The problem becomes difficult when someone reads a commentary and takes that as authoritative. No matter what, it is one degree of separation between the original text and the reader, and the original texts have layers of meaning. Add to that the differences in culture, depth, and traditions, and people can end up with some really strange views. This happens a lot in Tibet with Yogacara texts, where the views don't actually match those of the earlier Yogacara school in India. Another example is the Japanese Pure Land schools, which all place a premium on faith in Amitabha Buddha as a Jesus-like savior figure. They totally ignore the earliest traditions such as those of the Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra, which clearly teach that bodhisattvas use the name of Amitabha Buddha as a mantra primarily for entering samadhi. The element of faith is simply there to unify the mind, as the practices of Amitabha are akin to early deity yoga, and they also include bardo practices. The Japanese schools think that superstitious faith is good enough, so naturally anyone who can make progress is rare. This is how traditions die. These are examples for us, so we can learn from the mistakes they made along the way.

The Buddha usually uses silence or says "thus", "such", or "thusly". Even the term "Tathagata" is referring to suchness. He does not criticize the teachings per se, but does point out that they are not the reality of the truth itself. In the Diamond Sutra, he says "The so-called Buddha Dharma is not the Buddha Dharma", and "The Prajnaparamita expounded by the Buddha is not Prajnaparamita". At other times, though, he does say "Such is the True Dharma", referring in a concealed way to suchness, and in a naive way to the teachings previously given. The sutras are often written in a way that causes people of low capacity to revere them, and people of high capacity to see beyond to the ultimate truth. These are just examples that the people could get hung up on. Everyone is hindered by something. If they weren't, they would already be a buddha. For some people a short text is enough, but for others a longer text is necessary. One is not necessarily better than another. The important thing is that it helps someone at a particular time.

They were not made under delusion, they were made well, and they were always good. Of course they were not infinitely effective because they are only words, and need to be interpreted by the mind of the reader. The problem was that people clung to them. It is the same if people cling to a notion of a mindstream, or a notion that one thing is delusion and another is the true mind. Then we would need to add a line in the tantra for Dzogchen people being obscured by attachments to the mindstream and the natural state. No matter how virtuous, wise, simple, and true to reality a doctrine is, there will always be a need to turn people away from clinging to it. There is often even a need to turn people away from the notion of turning away. If there were only perfect teachings of silence, only a few people would understand them. If they were too simple, they would not be comprehensive enough to teach people who still have delusions. For example, the Heart Sutra is very simple and directs the mind toward the natural state and true suchness. If everyone had sufficient prajna, they could just read it, put it into practice, and become buddhas. However, what happens one day when your legs are freezing cold in meditation, and your mind is constantly agitated? How do you deal with those things? Your meditation is supposed to be improving, so why does it seem to be getting worse? What if serious health problems arise, or your meditation goes off course? Can you really just sit in meditation in the natural state then? What if you are practicing, but you don't seem to be getting any results? Every day you meditate, but your mind and body do not go through any transformations? Should you use a different meditation method? And what if you get to a particular state of mind, and you don't know what its significance is? In some esoteric texts, it is all expressed as the Sanskrit syllable short-A, but what help is that to the average person? The Lotus Sutra, Vimalakirti Sutra, and Diamond Sutra all give teachings of silence, but in those texts even the Buddha's disciples are unable to fully appreciate this. For most people, it seems that the truly simple and short teachings are just not enough. But how much is enough? Is the Diamond Sutra at 15 pages enough? Or the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra at 250 pages? Or the Avatamsaka Sutra at 1500 pages? Or the Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra at 15,000 pages? And what about the particular approach? Should it be analytical like Yogacara, lofty like Madhyamaka, or transcendent like Prajnaparamita? There are these different remedies because there are different illnesses. Everyone will gravitate toward different teachings and various interpretations. This entire range is why the Buddhist teachings are extremely broad and deep. In English, an entire translation of the Chinese Buddhist canon would be at least 500 large volumes. Just to translate all the teachings in its tantra section would be at least 16,000 pages.

No, it's definitely not criticizing the doctrine. The real truth is the Dharmakaya, and it is completely inconceivable by the mind. It cannot be fathomed, spoken in words, or inhered by anything. Even a billion eloquent words could not communicate it completely. The Mahaprajnaparamita Sutra with its 600 chapters all pointing to the truth cannot give anyone this, and they are ultimately insufficient. This goes for the Dzogchen texts as well. They are all just words. But if you don't accept any words or explanations, you will never understand the theory or how to practice. The tantra is stating that these explanations act to obscure the mind when people cling to them, and it is exactly right. They were not made from delusion, they were taught out of compassion for sentient beings who all require guidance. The Buddhist teachings are very deep and helpful, but they are still words, and theory is never the ultimate truth itself. The teachings should not be neglected, but people should also not become attached to them. The tantra is helping point this out to the reader that attachment to any hermeneutic obscures the truth. A Zen master said, "My words are poison, but if you don't listen, your sickness cannot be cured."