Practice or No Practice?

I’ll post about this just because it’s essentially been the focus of my studying for half a year now.

Baizhang said;

To say that it is possible to attain Buddhahood by cultivation, that there is practice and there is realization, that this mind is enlightened, that the mind itself is identical to Buddha - this is Buddha's teaching; these are words of the incomplete teaching. These are nonprohibitive words, generalizing words, words of a pound or ounce burden. These are words concerned with weeding out impure things; these are words of positive metaphor. These are dead words. These are words for ordinary people.

So there is cultivation for ordinary people.

To say that one cannot attain Buddhahood by cultivation, that there is no cultivation, no realization, it is not mind, not Buddha - this is also Buddha's teaching; these are words of the complete teaching, prohibitive words, particularizing words, words of a hundred hundredweight burden. These are words beyond the three vehicles' teachings, words of negative metaphor or instruction, words concerned with weeding out pure things; these are words for someone of station in the Way, these are living words.

So there isn’t cultivation for people of station in the way. At the beginning of Baizhang’s record there’s a bit more clarity on just what cultivation is.

If you are speaking to a deaf worldling, you should just teach him to leave home, maintain discipline, practice meditation and develop wisdom. You should not speak this way to a worldling beyond measure, someone like Vimalakirti or the great hero Fu.

So it’s the three studies of discipline, concentration, and wisdom. I put concentration there because that’s the best translation I believe for the three studies. The original is sila, samadhi, and prajna; each word having multiple meanings. Discipline is the 5 precepts: and is to get rid of lust, greed, anger, and selfishness. Concentration is what the Buddha and zen masters taught that has become meditation today. But it’s not quite the same, I can talk about that another time. Wisdom is it’s own discussion, but arises from discipline and concentration.

So why is it that ordinary people, dead worldlings, must be taught to practice? And why are those of some station told there is no practice?

The complete teaching discusses purity; the incomplete teaching discusses impurity. Explaining the defilement in impure things is to weed out the profane; explaining the defilement in pure things is to weed out the holy.

It’s just to stop people from clinging to impurity or purity. In neither case is it meant to be taken as objective truth. People just starting out need to be taught to cultivate so they can get rid of impurity. People who have gotten rid of impurities, but then cling to practice and attainment and won’t give them up, need to be taught to detach from purity and practice; from attainment and seeking.

This doesn’t mean that once they practice enough to become pure, that they go back to being impure and doing the same things as before. It’s a means of untying bonds and getting rid of worldly attachments. Putting to rest all concerns and fixations. But that’s not all when it comes to zen; one still needs to investigate single-mindedly.

So why do we see so many mentions of no practice and no attainment in the zen record? Why do they talk about the complete teaching so much, and detaching from purity? Because the people they are talking to are monks who are attached to purity and practice; to seeking and attaining. The record isn’t devoid of them giving instructions on practice, but it isn’t obvious to anyone who doesn’t know what zen cultivation is.

Those who say there is no practice don’t know what zen masters were talking about. Just as those who say there is practice don’t either. These things aren’t objective truths when spoken by a master, and shouldn’t be advertised as such to people who come here looking for answers or to get into zen. Some people here see a master say don’t practice and think it’s a message meant for them and everyone else, but it’s not. And it’s not what zen is about. Zen is what the Buddha taught, and what the zen masters expanded on to provisionally guide others to enlightenment.

Those who try to separate zen from everything taught by groups that have misused the teachings and been misguided by false teachers; throw out the good with the bad, and the right with the wrong. Not everything taught by buddhist groups is out of line with zen, and it only harms the teaching of zen to claim so. Meditation may have become corrupted in some forms, but discipline and the precepts are still important. Practice and cultivation are still necessary in zen.

To go a step further; practice without practice, seek without seeking.

Submitted May 15, 2023 at 01:58AM by StoneStill https://ift.tt/ZdjBkbp