Living by Vow

by Shohaku Okumura

  According to the Platform Sutra of the sixth ancestor, Huineng was practicing at the fifth ancestor’s monastery. He had not yet been ordained and was still a lay practitioner working at the monastery. Shenxiu, the founder of the Northern school, was the head monk and a very experienced practitioner. He was the oldest student of the fifth ancestor. The fifth ancestor was getting old and looking for a successor. He assembled his students and asked them to write a poem to show their understanding of the dharma. All the other monks, convinced that Shenxiu would be chosen as the fifth ancestor’s successor, declined to compose poems. Shenxiu alone wrote one, as follows:

  The body is the bodhi tree,

  The mind is like a bright mirror’s stand.

  At all times we must strive to polish it

  And must not let dust collect.98

  This body, our human body, is the bodhi tree. Bodhi, as we’ve seen, means “awakening,” so this body is the tree of awakening or enlightenment. Original wisdom is like a clear mirror. But there is usually dust on the mirror, so it doesn’t reflect things as they are. We have to continually polish the mirror of our mind to keep it clean. This was Shenxiu’s understanding of the dharma, human beings, and the meaning of practice. Our body and mind is original enlightened reality itself, but the dust of desire and ignorance cover it. When we polish it, the mirror becomes bright and functions as wisdom.

  Huineng couldn’t read or write. Even though he was not well educated, when he heard people reciting Shenxiu’s poem he must have thought, “That is not deep enough.” So Huineng asked one of the students to transcribe a poem for him, which he posted next to Shenxiu’s poem. His poem was:

  Bodhi originally has no tree.

  The bright mirror also has no stand.

  Fundamentally there is not a single thing.

  Where could dust arise?99

  Huineng said that enlightenment has no tree and the mirror no shape or form. Nothing exists. Since everything is completely empty, there is no place for dust to land. There is nothing that can be called desire or delusion. Our enlightenment or reality is always clear. There is nothing we have to polish and nothing we have to eliminate. That was Huineng’s understanding.

  The fifth ancestor secretly gave dharma transmission to Huineng in the night and let him leave the monastery. Shenxiu’s teaching, the Northern school, was called “gradual” enlightenment because Shenxiu held that we become enlightened after a long period of practice, polishing the mirror. In this school people practice to eliminate delusion based on ignorance. Huineng’s teaching was called “sudden” enlightenment. According to the Southern or “sudden” school realization is attained suddenly, without any stages of gradual practice. People realize reality beyond the discrimination between delusion and enlightenment. For example, the story of Huineng’s first realization experience—which happened before he began to study Zen when he heard someone chanting the Diamond Sutra—was taken to illustrate the idea of sudden enlightenment.

  The two schools separated under the fifth ancestor, and Shitou was a dharma grandson of Huineng. This is what Shitou refers to when he says that in the path, the Buddha’s Way, there are no “southern” or “northern” ancestors. Even though he was a dharma grandson of Huineng, the founder of the Southern school, he says that there is no distinction between southern or northern, which means between sudden or gradual enlightenment. Shitou wrote this poem to show the fundamental reality and go beyond the distinction between the factions of schools. This is a traditional understanding of the history of Chinese Zen in the eighth and ninth centuries.

  Historical Reality

  To understand Shitou’s position in the history of Chinese Zen Buddhism and also what he wrote in “Merging of Difference and Unity,” it might be helpful to understand the historical background of Zen in the eighth and ninth centuries. The actual reality was probably much more complex than we usually imagine. Guifeng Zongmi (Keihō Shumitsu, 780–841) was a famous Zen master and Buddhist philosopher who was born eighty years after Shitou. He was a scholar of the Kegon School, a Buddhist philosophical school based on the Kegon Sutra (Avataṃsaka Sutra or Flower Ornament Sutra). Feixiu (Haikyū, 797–870), a government minister, was very interested in Zen but was confused because there were so many different Zen groups at that time. He couldn’t understand how such diverse groups could have a common origin. When he questioned Zen practitioners, their answers were paradoxical. They said nothing logical. Since Zongmi was a scholar as well as a Zen practitioner, the minister asked him to explain the origin, tradition, and history of Zen, and how the many different methods of teaching related to this tradition. Zongmi explained the lineages of Zen from Bodhidharma in a short treatise. He wrote that at the time there were six schools of Zen, not just the Southern and Northern.

  The first one was called Niutou (Gozu, or Oxhead) school, named for the mountain where the founder lived. This school was headed by Niutou Farong (Gozu Hōyū, 594–657), who is said to have been a disciple of the fourth ancestor. So there was a division in Zen even before the fifth ancestor.

  The second, the Northern school, was Shenxiu’s school. It was particularly popular in the imperial court. Shenxiu himself and a few of his disciples became teachers of the emperors. This school was attacked by Heze Shenhui (Kataku Jinne, 668–760) in the first half of the eighth century and lost popularity within a few generations.

  The third and fourth were two smaller groups, the Jingzhong (Jōshū) school founded by Jingzhong Wuxiang (Jōshū Musō, 684–762) and Baotang (Hotō) school started by Baotang Wuzhu (Hotō Mujū, 714–774). Those were the streams that branched from the fifth ancestor. Zongmi did not say much about these two minor schools.

  The fifth and sixth were “Southern” schools derived from Huineng’s lineage. The fifth was called the Hongzhou (Kōshū) school founded by Mazu Daoyi (Baso Dōitsu, 709–788). Nanyue Huairang (Nangaku Ejō, 677–744) was a disciple of Huineng, and Mazu was Nanyue’s disciple and of the same generation as Shitou. Mazu was also Huineng’s dharma grandson.

  The last school, the Heze (Kataku), was founded by one of Huineng’s disciples named Heze Shenhui, who attacked the Northern school and claimed that his teacher, Huineng, was the legitimate dharma heir of the fifth ancestor.

  Zongmi didn’t talk about Shitou’s group at all, probably because it wasn’t big enough. He did discuss the similarities and differences between the Niutou school, the Northern school, and the two divisions of the Southern school, Hongzhou and Heze. Zongmi himself claimed that he belonged to the Heze school, whose teaching he considered the highest of all. However, modern scholars think Zongmi had no connection with this lineage. Shenhui was one of the most active of Huineng’s disciples and probably created the story of the dharma transmission from the fifth ancestor to Huineng. As Huineng’s disciple, Shenhui wanted him to be seen as greater than Shenxiu and recognized as the sixth ancestor. Shenxiu’s Northern school was more powerful and popular in the capital, in the north of China, whereas Huineng came from the southern countryside, was not well known, and may have lacked credibility because of his youth.

  In a sense, the history of different groups of Zen before Zen became established in Chinese Buddhism shows the meaning of “merging of difference and unity.” The groups were different and yet they were all considered as Zen practitioners.

  One Mind

  Zongmi compared the four schools on the basis of their understanding of difference and unity. Difference is a translation of ji and refers to the phenomenal or relative aspect of our life. Unity refers to the absolute aspect. Originally these two concepts, difference and unity, the phenomenal and absolute aspects of our life, are discussed as the two aspects of the One Mind.

  Shitou uses the phrase “the mind of the great sage of India.” The idea of a One Mind originated in the Awakening of Faith in Mahāyāna, one of the most important texts on the theory of tathāgata-garbha, or buddha-nature. It begins:

  The revelation of the true meaning [of the principle of Mah�
�yāna can be achieved] by [unfolding the doctrine] that the principle of One Mind has two aspects. One is the aspect of Mind in terms of the absolute (tathātā, suchness), and the other is the aspect of Mind in terms of phenomena (samsara, birth and death).100

  Samsara is the aspect of life into which we are born, live for a while, and die. It refers not only to the psychological mind but also to the functions of our lives. During the period between birth and death, our minds and lives constantly change, and we are limited by our particular time and place. We are conditioned by our unique experiences, education, and culture. Delusive desires function within this aspect because we can’t perceive reality as a whole. We have to make choices based on our limited perspectives.

  The Awakening of Faith continues, “Each of these two aspects embraces all states of existence. Why? Because these two aspects are mutually inclusive.” They completely interpenetrate each other. According to the text, we live a universal, eternal life as the absolute aspect of the Mind, and yet, as the phenomenal aspect of the same Mind, our life is individual and limited by that individuality. The Buddha addressed the relationship between these two aspects. He taught that life is suffering and the cause of this suffering is our desire, which arises out of ignorance. He taught that we have to transform our way of life into nirvana. This is the Buddha’s basic teaching. To realize nirvana we have to practice, to walk the eightfold noble path leading out of samsara. In the Awakening of Faith, samsara and nirvana are really two aspects of One Mind. The basic idea here is that both are embodied in the reality of our individual lives. Even though the reality of one life is beyond discrimination and delusion, from a relative or phenomenal perspective we are deluded and egocentric. We have delusive desires that bring suffering to our lives. So what should we do? How can we live in nirvana? The various answers to this question are the basis of the many different teachings and schools.

  Zongmi’s Comments on the Four Schools

  Zongmi discussed the four schools, although he wasn’t completely objective because he felt that his was the best form of practice. He used the interesting analogy of a mani jewel, the bright, transparent gem that symbolizes buddha-nature or One Mind. He explained that this jewel has no color, so when it is illuminated by light of a particular color, it takes on that color. A transparent jewel placed on a black sheet of paper becomes black. On a red sheet it appears red. These apparent changes were used as an analogy for individual or relative aspects of situations in our lives. If our life becomes really black, full of delusion and desire, the jewel of One Mind appears black. The bright jewel takes on the color of each situation. Yet the jewel itself is transparent and does not change.

  Zongmi said the Northern school taught that the black color is false. To become enlightened, to reveal the bright jewel, we have to remove the black. Our practice is to erase the darkness of our delusions. We have to polish the bright jewel to remove the colors that arise from particular situations. This requires constant practice.

  Mazu’s Hongzhou school maintained that everything we do, whether we are enlightened or deluded, is the function of the bright jewel. They taught that without color—black, white, or red—there is no bright jewel. We don’t need to eliminate a particular color to reveal the jewel. Buddha-nature doesn’t exist independently of particular situations. Even deluded actions are nothing other than the function of buddha-nature. So we don’t need to polish anything or engage in any particular practice. We just accept everything as reality, as a function or movement of buddha-nature.

  Zongmi made another analogy to explain Mazu’s beliefs. He compared buddha-nature to the flour used in cakes and bread. One can bake many types of bread and cake with different shapes and tastes, but the same flour is used to make them all. So it is with buddha-nature in the myriad situations of our lives. Mazu believed that there is nothing other than buddha-nature and that we need to realize that everything is buddha-nature. Zongmi may have exaggerated Mazu’s beliefs, as a way of criticizing Mazu. We cannot be sure whether this is what Mazu and his students really thought. But according to Zongmi, those who followed this form of practice/enlightenment felt that it is enough to believe that everything is a manifestation of the absolute. They believed that we don’t need any particular form of practice and can live freely.

  Zongmi explained that while Mazu’s school taught that everything is a manifestation of buddha-nature, Niutou’s teaching maintained that everything is empty. Not only the jewel’s color, but even the transparent jewel itself is empty, like a dream. So we should not grasp anything. Delusion is empty and without substance, as is the bright jewel. Our practice then is not to attach ourselves to anything. This is a complete penetration of emptiness. There is nothing we can achieve, nothing we have to eliminate. We must see both delusion and buddha-nature as empty. We have to realize the emptiness of all things. Zongmi criticized the Niutou school for its failure to recognize the permanent essence of One Mind and its mistaken belief that the One Mind is also empty.101

  Finally, the Heze school, as interpreted by Zongmi, believed that each of the other schools was partially correct. They asserted that the individual colors caused by various conditions are false, an imperfect reflection of reality. This means our discriminations are false, empty delusions. At the same time, they believed that the One Mind is not empty. We cannot grasp it, but it is here, clear and bright, and it is not empty. We must realize this oneness and see this bright jewel covered with delusions and then practice to free ourselves from delusions through sudden enlightenment. Thus this school combined the elements of gradual practice and sudden enlightenment. 102

  Shitou’s Lineage

  Our lineage, the Sōtō school, was also transmitted by the sixth ancestor, Huineng. Qingyuan Xingsi was Huineng’s dharma heir and Shitou’s teacher. Shitou transmitted the dharma to Yaoshan Weiyan (Yakusan Igen, 751–834). Yaoshan taught Yunyan Tansheng (Ungan Donjō, 780–841). The founder of the Chinese Sōtō school, Dongshan Liangjie (Tōzan Ryōkai, 807–869), was Yunyan’s disciple. This lineage was not well known by the other Zen schools at the time of Zongmi, who was a contemporary of Dongshan. This was perhaps because Mazu’s Hongzhou school was overwhelmingly larger and more popular. It was called the “one-stop shop,” like a supermarket that had something for everyone. Shitou was a contemporary of Mazu. In comparison with Mazu’s style of practice, Shitou’s school was called the “real-gold shop.” His form of practice was considered very pure, and since the school offered only real gold, it was small. Yaoshan’s sangha was in fact very small, fewer than twenty people. Yunyan was a very quiet person. He didn’t think of himself as enlightened. After the time of Dongshan and his disciples, this lineage finally became popular and the sayings of these five masters were recorded.

  “Sandōkai” is Shitou’s attempt to record his understanding of the relationship between buddha-nature—the absolute aspect of our life—and the relative or phenomenal aspect of our life, in other words, between enlightenment and delusion. He does this by contrasting the beliefs of the various schools. The Northern school emphasized difference and tried to transcend it through unity. In Mazu’s Hongzhou school, unity is found only in difference. Since there is no unity outside of difference, they believed we must accept difference. In the Niutou school difference and unity are both empty, and we are taught to strive to become free from such distinctions. Finally, the Heze school focused on recognizing that differences are empty, while unity is not. Shitou suggested that we must try to see the relationship between difference and unity clearly. He emphasized neither, but instead tried to see reality as a merging of difference and unity. I think this is what “Sandōkai” (Merging of Difference and Unity) expresses.

  Shitou says, “People’s faculties may be keen or dull, but in the path there are no ‘southern’ or ‘northern’ ancestors.” He means there is no difference between sudden and gradual enlightenment. People have different capabilities. Some understand suddenly and some more gradually, but in reality there is no such
distinction. For Shitou, any division of the dharma or discussion of which approach to it is superior is senseless. Instead he tries to show us the One Mind, “the mind of the great sage of India” before separation. This One Mind embraces two aspects: a spiritual source and branching streams.

  SPIRITUAL SOURCE AND BRANCHING STREAMS

  The spiritual source shines clearly in the light;

  The branching streams flow in the darkness.

  Grasping things is basically delusion;

  Merging with principle is still not enlightenment.

  As we’ve learned, in Shitou’s time Buddhism was separated into schools that argued about basic issues like the nature of enlightenment and the best method of practice. Shitou’s response was to describe the mind of the great sage of India. He wasn’t talking about psychology, but rather about the reality of life that includes both the absolute and phenomenal aspects in terms of the relation between the self and other things as objects.

  As Dōgen Zenji said in Shōbōgenzō “Genjōkōan,” “To study the Buddha’s Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be verified by all things. To be verified by all things is to let the body and mind of the self and the body and mind of others drop off.”103 The study of the Buddha’s teaching is the study of this body and mind, of who we are. Shitou’s teachings on difference and unity, two different understandings of the Buddha Way, are really about seeing our lives from two different perspectives as one seamless reality.

  In Buddhism the concept of seeing one reality from two angles originated in Nāgārjuna’s teaching. In Madhyamikakarika Nāgārjuna said, “Without relying on everyday common practices (i.e., relative truths), the absolute truth cannot be expressed. Without approaching the absolute truth, nirvana cannot be attained” (24:10).104 Here he distinguishes between relative truth, our day-to-day way of thinking, and absolute truth. In this way he introduces the idea of seeing one reality in two ways, which is the origin of the idea of difference and unity. The Awakening of Faith says, “The revelation of the true meaning of the principle of Mahāyāna can be achieved by unfolding the doctrine that the principle of One Mind has two aspects.”105 Here “One Mind” is the same as one reality, or “the mind of the great sage of India.” This One Mind has two aspects, absolute truth and relativity or phenomena. One Mind can be seen from two perspectives. This is the origin of the idea of difference and unity called ji and ri in Chinese Buddhism. As we’ve seen, ji literally means “event” or “thing,” something very particular and concrete. It can also mean phenomenon, material, or something individual and independent. Ri means “principle” or “law,” something abstract that has no shape or form, something universal. These two aspects are not two parts of one thing. Both aspects are included in reality, the One Mind. From one side, One Mind is a collection of individual things, and from another side, this whole reality is simply one. There is no distinction or separation within this one reality. And yet, individuality does not disappear. Individuality is there without separation. This means we don’t discriminate between individuals.