Huangbo, Bankei and Layman P'ang: There can be no death for what was never born, so if it is unborn, it is obviously undying. There's no need to say it, is there?

Students of the Way should be sure that the four elements composing the body do not constitute the 'self', that the 'self' is not an entity; and that it can be deduced from this that the body is neither 'self' nor entity. Moreover, the five aggregates composing the mind do not constitute either a 'self' or an entity; hence, it can be deduced that the mind is neither 'self' nor entity.

The six sense organs, including the brain, which, together with their six types of perception and the six kinds of objects of perception, constitute the sensory world, must be understood in the same way. Those eighteen aspects of sense are separately and together void. There is only Mind-Source, limitless in extent and of absolute purity.

Huangbo Xiyun [died 850?]: On the Transmission of Mind, translated by John Blofeld, 1958

_________________________________________________________________________

A person of the Unborn is one who dwells at the source of all Buddhas. The Unborn is the origin of all and the beginning of all. There is no source apart from the Unborn and no beginning that is before the Unborn. So being unborn means dwelling at the very source of all Buddhas.

If you live in the Unborn, then there's no longer any need to speak about "nonextinction" or "undying." It would be a waste of time. So I always talk about the "Unborn," never about the "Undying." There can be no death for what was never born, so if it is unborn, it is obviously undying. There's no need to say it, is there?

Bankei Yōtaku [1622-1693]: Unborn: The Life and Teachings of Zen Master Bankei, Norman Waddell, 1984

_________________________________________________________________________

When the time came to pass on, the Layman had his daughter prepare hot water, took a bath, donned his robe, sat properly cross-legged upon his bed, and having spoken his parting words addressed her, saying: 'Watch when the sun reaches due south at noon and report it to me.' As he had said, she watched and reported, saying: 'The sun has just reached due south, but the sun's yang brilliance is eclipsed.'

The Layman exclaimed: 'How can that be!' Then he arose and went to see it himself. Thereupon his daughter crawled upon the bed, sat properly, and passed away. Her father turned, and seeing this exclaimed: 'Exquisite! I spoke of it earlier, but I'll now have to do it later.' Accordingly the Layman let seven days elapse and died.

Layman P'ang [740-808]: The Recorded Sayings of Layman P'ang, compiled by Yü Ti Translated from the Chinese by Ruth Fuller Sasaki, Yoshitaka Iriya and Dana R. Fraser, 1971

_________________________________________________________________________

Commentary and questions: At what point does being alive and having awareness fall into generating the illusory subject-object split? There seems to be a problem inherent in the very limitations of perception: perceiving through the senses and being bound to thoughts tends to allow the mistakes of making great sweeping distinctions, as in this is mine and that is yours. Among the maelstrom of all transient forms, motion and change, what is there that is really yours to begin with?

Furthermore, acts of good and acts of evil both derive from the subject-object split, but some dualism or distinctions are entirely necessary for things to be differentiated within the Absolute. And as the Buddha taught, all of life is suffering, and suffering is caused by the attachment to impermanent things. What could be more impermanent than the tenuous hold of life itself?

Submitted February 10, 2020 at 09:58PM by _WanderingRonin_ https://ift.tt/2tKKsZT