Soh Wei Yu
7m
 
 ·
Shared with Your friends
Just saw this. Nice! Zen Master Hong Wen Liang refuting the eternalist views of the I AM phase, and then refuting those who wrongly teach that meditation is not important. Actually these are neo-Advaita views, non-Buddhist.
Whole article is very good but I'll just take out two short excerpts.

Soh Wei Yu
Translation:
 

Okay, here are the English translations of the two excerpts:

1) Translation of Excerpt One:

Why is it unacceptable? Why can't it be trusted? Because the power of self-awareness [自觉的力量 - zìjué de lìliàng] has not arisen. If the power of self-awareness has not arisen, it is very difficult to accept this One Vehicle Dharma Gate [一乘法门 - yīchéng fǎmén] taught by the Buddha. If one wants to achieve the same state as the Buddha upon seeing the morning star, one must sit [meditate] like this. To enter the state of non-thinking [不思量 - bù sīliang], the method of "non-thinking" [非思量 - fēi sīliang] proposed by Chan Master Yaoshan [药山禅师] is best. So, his sudden mention here that "thinking is also flesh, bones, and marrow; not thinking is also flesh, bones, and marrow" [思量也是皮肉骨髓，不思量也是皮肉骨髓] is to prevent everyone from misunderstanding, thinking that the arising of thoughts is wrong. If no thoughts arise at all, that is the Samadhi of No-Thought [无想定 - wú xiǎng dìng], and upon exiting that concentration, thoughts will still arise as usual. You are not a block of wood or stone; thoughts will definitely arise. What the Buddha guides us towards is that the coming and going of thoughts doesn't matter. So, how is this different from the coming and going of thoughts for ordinary people? When he says "thinking is also flesh, bones, and marrow; not thinking is also flesh, bones, and marrow," he is pointing to this very place. He tells you that when a thought arises, if you generate an intention to grasp it [取 - qǔ] or generate a thought to discard it [舍 - shě], that is the problem. The thought itself is just flesh, bones, and marrow [i.e., a natural manifestation]. It's not that "I am here observing thoughts; I know when thoughts come, I know when thoughts go, thoughts move about, and there is an unchanging 'me' here knowing..." Hey! This is the method of external paths [外道的方法 - wàidào de fāngfǎ]; many people teach this method. "I am here knowing thoughts come, knowing thoughts go, and before the second thought arises, ah! Clarity. I am clarity here, not following thoughts as they come and go, incomparably clear, never moving. The coming and going are guests, I am the host..." This is the cultivation method of external paths! Many people fall into this trap, unaware of the error. Aren't you still positing a clear, unmoving 'you' over there observing the movement? What did the Buddha truly teach? Thinking itself is also flesh, bones, and marrow!

Thoughts themselves are not problematic, just like sounds. The sound of clapping is the sound of clapping; the sound of knocking on a table is the sound of knocking on a table. Does the ear differentiate, thinking "I want to hear the clapping sound," in order to hear it? Different sounds naturally manifest differently. Do you need to use your mind to differentiate them? You don't need to differentiate them; they inherently manifest their distinct characteristics. Is it because you differentiate them that they become two different sounds? Are these two sounds the same? No, they are different; there is differentiation. Is it you who differentiates them? Do they need you to differentiate them for them to be different? No! Without you differentiating them, they are naturally differentiated. "Differentiating without [actively] differentiating; not differentiating, yet still differentiated" [分别也不分别，不分别也分别] – this is the meaning. Sound manifests, but where does it manifest? It doesn't manifest 'in me'! We all first assume an 'I' exists, then sound manifests in the external environment, and 'I' hear the sound here. Approaching it this way, one simply cannot align with the Dharma taught by the Buddha. First assuming there is an 'I', 'I am here', and then whatever object appears, I see it; whatever sound occurs, I hear it; whatever conditions arise, they manifest – if the conditions are there, it exists; if the conditions are absent, it doesn't exist. My six sense faculties manifest according to external conditions... 'My' six faculties... learning proceeds like this. It's already established on the foundation of "an I exists," and then one waits there: whatever sound, it manifests; whatever image, it's seen; listening according to conditions, seeing according to conditions, 'my' ear faculty, 'my' ear faculty.... Look, how is this the Dharma taught by the Buddha? The starting point is already wrong, already based on the false self [假我 - jiǎ wǒ], right? When sound manifests, is it divided into 'yours,' 'mine,' 'his'? Does the ear faculty have divisions? Even speaking of the 'ear faculty' [耳根 - ěr gēn] is already incorrect; it's just for convenience of explanation. When you point to an ear, which ear is it? So, when truly discussed, there is fundamentally no hearing; this is how hearing is. Who hears, and who is heard? [谁听谁被听呀？] It manifests there as a unified whole [一体地在那边显现嘛]! There is no sound-being-heard, nor a person hearing, nor even a hearing ear? But we are all in a state where the 'I' exists; that concept of 'I' [那个「我」的概念] cannot be shaken off. Listening to the Buddhadharma from this state, whatever understanding one thinks one has gained is still just one's own interpretation.

2) Translation of Excerpt Two:

"There are also some people who advocate: Only beginners need sitting meditation (zazen/dazuo) [坐禅打坐 - zuòchán dǎzuò]; cultivating Buddhahood [修佛 - xiūfó] doesn't necessarily require sitting meditation."

There's another school of thought saying that people cultivating Buddhahood don't necessarily need to practice sitting meditation; sitting meditation is just a skillful means [方便 - fāngbiàn] for those beginners who are just starting to learn Buddhism. What's their reasoning? Walking is also Chan [禅 - Chán / Zen], sitting is also Chan... Some people write on my books, "Walking is also Chan, sitting is also Chan; speaking, silence, movement, stillness – the essence/body is naturally tranquil" [行亦禅、坐亦禅，语默动静体安然 - xíng yì chán, zuò yì chán, yǔ mò dòng jìng tǐ ānrán]... "Therefore, walking, singing, moving is Chan, sitting is Chan, sleeping is Chan, talking is Chan, not talking is Chan, that fundamental essence [本体 - běntǐ] doesn't move..." Look how beautifully put! Dogen Zenji [道元禅师] said: "This is just an excuse [借口 - jièkǒu]! It's not like this." They say only beginners need sitting meditation, that learning Buddhism doesn't necessarily require it. The Buddha didn't say this! Such assertions are later developments where people mixed in many practices from external paths [外道修法 - wàidào xiūfǎ]. The essence is naturally tranquil [体安然 - tǐ ānrán]? Let me ask you, what is that essence [体 - tǐ]? That essence doesn't move at all? Isn't that essence still something you've conceived within your concepts [概念里想出来的 - gàiniàn lǐ xiǎng chūlái de]? You conceptualize a fundamental essence, thinking that essence never moves, like the great ocean, while our speech, silence, movement, and stillness are like waves, but the ocean itself remains unmoved... This is something you're thinking up conceptually! Unless you personally attain the state of non-thinking [非思量的境界 - fēi sīliang de jìngjiè], you cannot grasp this. You talk about the essence being tranquil, essence, essence... isn't that 'essence' still just your concept? Absolutely do not follow this path; that leads to mere intellectualizing/theorizing [讲道理 - jiǎng dàolǐ]. Chan Master Rujing [如净禅师] was extremely strict, extremely brilliant. There weren't many patriarchs whom Master Rujing recognized, figures like Chan Master Hongzhi [宏智禅师], Chan Master Huangbo [黄檗禅师], Chan Master Dogen...
 

    Reply
    4mEdited


From https://m.cafe.daum.net/youmawon/HOmu/223?
1) Excerpt one:
为什么无法接受？为什么信不过？因为自觉的力量没有升起。若自觉的力量没有升起的话，很难接受佛讲的这个一乘法门。如果要做到跟佛一样一见明星的状态，一定要这样子坐。要进入不思量的境界，用药山禅师所提的非思量的方法最好。所以他这里忽然提到「思量也是皮肉骨髓，不思量也是皮肉骨髓」是怕大家误会，以为念头来了是不对的。念头都不来，那是无想定，出定了照样有念头来。你不是木头石块呀，念头一定会来。佛所指导的，念头来去没有关系，那么跟普遍一般人念头来去有什么不同？他讲「思量也是皮肉骨髓，不思量也是皮肉骨髓」，就是在指这个地方。他告诉你，念头来了，你起一个意见要取它，起一个念头要舍它，那才是问题。那个念头的本身就是皮肉骨髓。不是我在这里观察念头，念头来知道，念头去知道，念头动来动去，我这里有一个不动的在这边知道……哎！这是外道的方法呀，很多人在教这个方法。「我在这里知道念头来，念头去也知道，第二个念头还没来以前，啊！清静。我这里是清静，不会跟着念头来去，清静无比，都没有动。来去的是客人，我是主人……」，这是外道的修法喔！很多人掉在这里，不知道错误，你还不是有一个清净不动的你在那边观察动！真正佛陀教导的是什么？思量也是皮肉骨髓呀！
念头本身没有问题，跟声音一样，拍手的声音是拍手的声音、敲桌子的声音是敲桌子的声音，耳朵有没有分「我要听拍手的声音」才听到？声音不一样，就现不一样的样子，你需不需要用头脑去分别它？你不要去分别它，它本身就显现不一样的样子了嘛！是你去分别它，它才变成两种不同的声音的吗？这两种声音一样吗？不一样，有分别。是你去分别它的吗？需要你去分别它，它才不一样的吗？不用！不用你去分别它，它自然就有分别。「分别也不分别，不分别也分别」，就是这个意思。声音显现，在哪里显现？不是在我这里显现耶！我们都先认定有一个我存在，然后声音在外境显现，我在这里听到声音。这样的话，根本无法跟佛讲的法相应。先认定有我，我在这里，然后有什么东西我就看到，有什么声音我就听，有什么缘就现什么，缘有就有，缘没有就没有。我的六根随着外境随缘显现……我的六根……就这样子学去了。先已经建立在「有我存在」的基础上了，然后在那里等著，有什么声音就现，有什么影像就看到，随缘听随缘看，我的耳根，我的耳根……。你看看，这哪是佛讲的法？起点就已经错掉了，就已经以假我为基础了，对不对？声音显现，有没有分你的我的他的？耳根有没有分？说耳根就已经不对了，那是为了方便说明而已。你指耳朵是哪个耳朵呀？所以讲起是根本没有听，是这样子听。谁听谁被听呀？一体地在那边显现嘛！没有被听的声音，也没有听的人，难道有听的耳朵吗？但我们都在有我存在的状态，那个「我」的概念挥不掉，以这个状态来听佛法，听了后认为是怎么样，还不是自己认为的。
2) Excerpt two:
『还有一些人主张说：初修的人才需要坐禅打坐，修佛不一定要打坐。』
还有一派人说，修佛的人不一定要打坐，打坐是给那些初修，刚开始要学佛的人的方便。他们的理由是什么？走路也是禅呀，坐也是禅呀……。有些人在我的书上写「行亦禅、坐亦禅，语默动静体安然」……「所以你走路、唱歌、行也禅、坐也禅、睡觉也禅、讲话也禅、不讲话也禅，那个本体都不动……」你看看，讲得多漂亮呀！道元禅师说：「这是借口呀！不是这样子的。」他们说初修的人才需要打坐，学佛不一定要打坐。佛陀没有这样子讲呀！这样的讲法都是后来的人渗杂了很多外道修法。体安然？我问你，你那个体是什么？那个体都没有动？那个体还不是你概念里想出来的体。你在概念里想一个本体，那个体怎么样都不动，本体好像大海，我们的语默动静都好像波浪一样，那个大海都不动……。你在概念里想的呀！非得你亲自做到非思量的境界，否则你没有办法领会这个。你讲体安然，体、体……，那个体还不是你的概念吗？千万不能走这个路子，那是讲道理去了。如净禅师非常严格，非常高明，被如净禅师认可的祖师爷不多，像宏智禅师、黄檗禅师、道元禅师……

To read the text in full (English and Chinese available), please read: A Needle for Zazen (Zazenshin)—The True Meaning of Seated Meditation Transmitted Through Successive Generations