simmonds@demon.siemens.com (Tom Simmonds) (06/29/91)
*johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler)
*Subject: Re: Lin-Chi on reality and his function as a teacher
*In article 197 of soc.religion.eastern, Tom Simmonds writes:
*>>Just one final point of clarification: the reference to the six senses refers
*>>not to the organs of sense, nor to their objects, nor to some subjective
*>>medium, but to the vividly present experiences themselves as conscious
*>>events, without the conceptual assumption of some underlying substance or
*>>external cause.
*
*I do not think this interpretation is warranted, Tom. Don't forget, Lin Chi
*was a Chinese master of the Ch'an lineage, not a Japanese Zen Buddhist. Lin
*Chi speaks freely and often of the Buddha-nature, the "True Man," and the Tao.
*His teaching is based on the realization of this reality.
I admit that there is some interpretation on my part. However, most of
that item of clarification came from the translator's note in my copy of the
Lin-Chi Lu. Unfortunately, I don't have it in front of me (my books are not
where the terminal is), but as I recall, it said something to the effect that
"the six senses" refers neither to the organs of sensation nor their objects,
but to the experiences of seeing, hearing, etc. I assume that the translator
was competent and that he inserted that note to clarify the meaning of the
words in the Chinese text which have no clear English equivalents.
Of course, all interpretations, being conceptual in nature, are off the mark.
The reasoning behind my interpretation, aside from what it says in the sutras
that were very much a part of the foundation of Ch'an, is that there is a
distinction to be made between experience, as it is, in its "raw" form, and
our ideas about it, which include the ideas that they are caused by some
external agent or that they exist within some underlying medium. Since the
translator's note says that it refers to the experience, I took it to mean
exactly that.
The Japanese Zen Buddhists didn't originate the idea of the absense of an
underlying medium. Sunyata is a very important element of the Prajna-paramita.
*Like it or not, all of Mahayana Bhuddhism has, as one of its basic tenets,
*the doctrine of an ultimate metaphysical principle. What do you think Buddhist
*sages are talking about when they speak of the Tao, the Buddha-mind, the
*Dharmakaya, Self-born Wisdom, etc. Even in the Pali texts one finds statements
*such as, "There is, O monks, an Unborn, an Uncreated, an Unbecome..," etc.
I think it is experience itself, without an underlying substance. Because
there is need of some way to refer to that "empty" reality, which is devoid
of ego-substance (according to numerous Mahayana texts), people have used
various names for it throughout history: Buddha-mind, Dharmakaya, etc. If
it were a substance or entity of some kind, I don't think it could be
described as Unborn, Uncreated, Unbecome, etc. To conceive of it as a
distinct substance or entity is to hold a limited, dualistic idea.
Nobody can deny the occurrance of experiences of all kinds, of course; but
to go beyond that and assert some underlying entity is to enter into the
realm of conceptualization - to construct a metaphysical model formed of
ideas. We conceptualize about experience, and we name it, and we talk about
it; thus generating a grand dualistic illusion that we are talking about some
entity. The Prajna-Paramita Sutras are full of very clear declarations that
there is no such *thing* as an Ultimate Reality.
When one finds experience "as it is", one goes beyond such ideas as Ultimate
Reality. When we try to talk about it, we create falsehoods. Lin Chi
was not immune to that problem, and neither was Buddha. That's why
Buddha said such things as "We say there is the Buddha-mind, but in
reality there is no such thing to be known as the Buddha-mind; therefore
it is truly the Buddha-mind."
Anyway, I hope that clarifies the source and reasoning behind my
interpretation. It is just that: an interpretation - but not without
a reasonable foundation, IMHO.