6/18 TRANSMISSION of the LIGHT: Shakyamuni

[Jundo]

Hi All,

We begin at the beginning of the Line ... with Shakyamuni, Gautama Buddha.

Or are we starting at the end? Does Shakyamuni receive Transmission from all the Ancestors? From you and me?

Is it just every single step of the line in every single step? Or is the line truly a circle? A single point? Not even there.

Is it a quilt of many threads, covering us and keeping us warm?

viewtopic.php?p=36746#p36746 (http://http://www.treeleaf.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=36746#p36746)

Is Shakyamuni just Shakyamuni, with no one else before or after?

May we, should we, need we even try to say?

...

In Cook, pages 29 - 31, and in Hixon, pages 35 - 37

Gassho, J

[Silva]

:D :) :( :o :shock: :? 8) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:

all at the same time and in whatever order you prefer!

gassho,

Sylvie

[Silva]

At first the questions made me merry, but that skin has peeled off leaving a baffled and bewildered child. I read and read again but with sightless eyes and ignorant mind. Keizan speaks of intimacy of enlightenment, and where I feel solitude in darkness. How can there be intimacy with the insubstantial ? There isn't anything to be enlightened, before during or after. Empty person reading empty words... All I know is a quiet place on a cushion

[Taylor]

I intellectualize and philosophize too much. "Well Buddha attained Enlightenment by manifesting..." STOP!

I simply don't know. Keizan speaks in tongues to me, some words touch deep and others waft over the surface as if they were never written. Maybe it's the mid-day sun I'm reading in 8)

Hixon's commentary clears away a bit of the fog but, then again, maybe I'm just trying to intellectualize everything and am adding more fog than before. Comfortable, cozy; an all too familiar fog of ignorance and contentment. To the cushion!

Taylor

[Jundo]

Here is a Lineage Chart, typical of Zen groups, similar to the one we have here at Treeleaf for our Jukai (Undertaking the Precepts) Ceremony ...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/96/212495722_1a9661d836_o.jpg

Notice that the red bloodline comes round from where it starts ... notice that it does not truly begin or end with Shakyamuni ... notice the circle that comes before Shakyamuni (or, when heading in the other direction, after Shakyamuni ... and the line circles around too ... Perhaps endless circles within circles ).

Notice that, in this particular version of the line, no names are present other than Shakyamuni (need his name be present?). Yet, there are all the ancestors ... and you and me too ... each in our proper place.

Notice the clear white writing space from which it all comes to life ... the same whiteness found within the circle and without.

A lovely quilt.

Gassho, J

[Taigu]

Hi everybody,

A few ramblings and pointers using the beloved words of Lex Hixon. Sorry in advance for my cryptic-poetic junk :roll: .

We begin in the begin less moment. For Shakyamuni ‘s awakening is not his. For there is no self left to be called anything, even Shakyamuni.

The amber autumn moon sets before dawn, balancing on the black rock palisade, reflecting across the wide river: this is the universality of this transmission, instantly shining through and across the big stretches of space and time, moon dear to Dogen’ heart, undefiled moon meeting reality, matter, enlightening darkness itself. This big majestic dew drop or this small pool of water we are in instantly burning, dancing. Where is the moon now, can it be seen or named?

Seeing directly. Nothing in between, no veil of thoughts, no wave of emotion, no past or future, directly means perfect fitting, absolute merging. Like two hands in gassho. Like two legs in sitting. Seeing directly is living fully, experiencing without any traces left behind. You-me-others-this boundless universe is perfect oneness. Does not need to be fixed. This universe is your body, your flesh, your words and mind. It does not live over there, comes from somebody else. In fact, true transmission is no transmission, no movement between two sentient beings, no separation whatsoever. Can you measure your true body? How many inches? How many faces? Can you cut it? This is why it is said that this sword, the sword of Prajana, cuts things into one…?

Now you may understand never alone. A moon so full it engulfs the sun. Call it oneness or nondulaity, call it whatever. It is where you are truly from, made of, your very stuff. It cannot leave you or being taken away from you. So compassion is given not because of an intention to give, not from a giver to a bunch of deluded idiots daydreaming.This unique compassion without subject or object is the activity of awakening , compassion is the radiance, the tide, the flow or rays in action rippling through and through tirelessly. Compassion arises when awkening activity meets awakening activity. Sadness in front of the samsara is extra. For absolute are relative are not one-not two, Samsara and Nirvana are but a single gate.

The living Buddha possesses only robe and alms-bowl. Utter simplicity, something to wear, something to be fed from. What is a robe? Buddha’s Body, skin, lineage, boundless space…the robe is both a clothing and the timeless naked reality. A robe that borrows from everything, as you make it, you sew into it everything you meet, all bits and pieces ( pains, sorrows, joys, name it), a quilt made of your life but also a quilt made of stars, moon, seas, cities, stones, trees, dirt…As you wrap your sitting body-mind into it and keep this empty bowl on your lap, empty because it welcomes without discriminating ( in the ritual practice of begging, everything is accepted), you simply come back home. The true home you are is at home everywhere. Speck of dust or golden palaces, remote mountain hermitages or busy city streets are all but other names given to you. Simplicity is not to take away things and live cheaply, it is rather not to add to this already perfect being. Being one with everything you meet.

[Silva]

This unique compassion without subject or object is the activity of awakening , compassion is the radiance, the tide, the flow or rays in action rippling through and through tirelessly. Compassion arises when awkening activity meets awakening activity.

Thank-you for this, I relate better to your commentaries than to Lex Hixon's funnily enough, I find your

cryptic-poetic junk
far more straightforward,
bizarre, bizarre!
gassho
Sylvie

[Rich]

Thanks Taigu. In Hixon's I had underlined:

"Great compassion is simply the absence of separateness."

and

"Our very skin, nerves, and senses are the morning star of enlightenment, yet Total Awakeness has absolutely nothing to do with skin, nerves, senses. Although both sides are true, leave both sides behind! There is only limitless awareness in this hermitage!

Wow!!

/Rich

[AlanLa]

I love Keizan's focus on the word "and." We get so focused on objects that we forget there is no separation, and the link is the word "and." Nice!

I loved Hixon's "Never alone. This means oneness.... Great compassion is simply the absence of separateness.... Suffering beings on the tree of enlightenment? Impossible! Yet they continue to appear right before our eyes."

Put it all together and I get the following: "And" means no separation, never being alone, which is compassion for those suffering, including me, of which I am "and."

[chicanobudista]

Must there be a beginning?

[Silva]

"And" means no separation, never being alone, which is compassion for those suffering, including me, of which I am "and."

All is "and", "nothing-everything " because all is LIFE and LIFE is ALL.

[CraigfromAz]

Thanks to Taigu for his very helpful interpretive words. The only thing I have to offer is more questions:

From Hixon: "There are no separate sentient beings, yet the enlightened way naturally and tenderly serves sentient beings." I am very confused by the "not one/not two" language. My latest interpretation of this is that buddha nature, soul, big mind, whatever you want to call it, is a single, formless entity shared by all sentient beings (and all objects in the universe?), but expressed in the body of each sentient being. It is the true "lord of the manor", and individual "self" is merely a delusional construct of the (small) mind?

"...This is the drama of Dharma succession, the transmission of light from one living Buddha to the next, from one generation to the next." Then Hixon goes on to state that all beings are simultaneously awakened - so what is the point of transmission?

[Myozan Kodo]

Great and insightful words Taigu, and provocative questions Jundo.

A few musings…

There is…

Conventional reality: Shakyamuni, the historical Buddha, gets the whole thing going. He brings a new awareness and understanding into the world. He lights a bright fuse that burns forward in time, forever. On this level, a mountain is a mountain and Larry is Larry.

There is…

Ultimate reality: the ground of being is the same before and after Shakyamuni. Time is irrelevant. You and I disappear. There were beings awakened to reality before Shakyamuni and there have been awakened beings since Shakyamuni. There are awakened beings to come. On this level, a mountain is not a mountain and Larry is not Larry.

Once duality is broken through, both these conditions co-exist simultaneously. In fact, they always co-exist in reality … even if it seems contradictory to say so. But let’s put all that aside…

The mountain is a mountain again. And Larry … were you ever anything but Larry?

Gassho,
Soen

PS: The Larry reference comes from Jundo's talk last week.

[Jikyo]

Hi everyone,

Both texts have beautiful words, confusing words, penetrating words, resonating words. Thank you as always Taigu for your “poetic-cryptic junk” - your words enter me through my eyes and instantly reside in my heart. Deep gassho.

I have spent the afternoon mulling (dancing with) “when a large net is taken up . . . all the many openings of the net are also taken up.” The thing and the no-thing as one, not two. What isn’t the net defines the net just as the openings of the net do not exist without the net. Shakyamuni was enlightened therefore the whole earth and all beings were simultaneously enlightened - there is no separation - life IS. It’s our minds that create separation and linear time. Maybe? I am quite positive I know nothing. :?

Gassho,
Jikyo

[Jundo]

I am very confused by the "not one/not two" language. My latest interpretation of this is that buddha nature, soul, big mind, whatever you want to call it, is a single, formless entity shared by all sentient beings (and all objects in the universe?), but expressed in the body of each sentient being. It is the true "lord of the manor", and individual "self" is merely a delusional construct of the (small) mind?

Most Zen teachers throughout history (at least, the good ones! 8) ) would caution against reifying "buddha nature" "emptyness" "enlightenment" etc. ... even "Buddha" ... into a thing ... ("reification" meaning to turn something into a fixed, rigid, concrete idea, separate from other things ... a separate and half dead mental object). In so doing, you kill the subtly of what is there ... take the living butterfly and, capturing it, press it under glass ... drive a wall between you and it.

You also limit "it" to what your little human mind and imagination thinks it must be ... as if, by thinking of "China", one can capture by some one word or mental image all the richness, history, beauty and ugliness, comedy and tragedy, tastes and smells, movement of billions of people and vastness of that place and culture on this planet ... How much more would we do an injustice by trying to label "Buddha"??

That is why, for example, I often like to refer to Buddha and emptyness as a dance ... for there is a world of difference between simply describing a dance with the word "dance" ... or the concrete mental image of "a dance" ... and the actual joyful and free experience of dancing! (Take a spin here when you have a chance) ...

viewtopic.php?p=36135#p36135 (http://http://www.treeleaf.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=36135#p36135)

There was always the tendency, throughout the history of Buddhism, and within Zen Buddhism too, to reify "Buddha" etc. into another god, a "Cosmic Spirit" etc. ... and most of the good teachers (fortunately, in the majority over the centuries) have always resisted doing that too easily for the reasons I describe.

Zen teachings are filled with expressions like "not two" to present the subtly of something that is not well captured, and may even mislead, if we say it in ordinary language. So, for example, the Buddhist teachings instruct us to dance with the fact that we are all one with this life-self-world to such a degree of intimacy and sameness that even the word "one" is misleading as just a creation of the mind (for what use is the word "one" if there is not even a "two" that we should compare it to?) What is more, "one" has that same danger of being turned into a thing ... some "one concrete, frozen thing" ... like saying that it is "just one dance" as opposed to a constantly moving and growing, changing, flowering ongoing dancing! And what is more, we are also "two" too ... because your are absolutely and perfectly you, the only and unique "one of you dancer" dancing in all reality without not a thing about you to make "you" more "you" ... and the same for me too! (It is not a contradiction from saying that "there is no two" and "there are two", just a different perspective on things. It is only a "delusion", perhaps, when all you can see is you as you alone.).

When we are swept up in the dance ... there is just the dancing, the dancers now just the dance ... the dancing. And there are the separate dancers too, each making their own twirls and whirls. (Soen expresses this nicely in his post too.) Craig, you are as intimately and fully Craig as Craig can be Craig, with not one hair on your head to add or take away to make you more "Craigy". As well, Craig is the life-world-self-dance as intimately and wholly as a single hair growing on Craig's lovely head is just a Craig's head lovely growing single hair!

Something like that.

To capture the subtlety of that living, ever and every moving, changing dance ... we might say "not two" or "not even one" or "one beyond one" or some other poetic expressions. I prefer the "dancing". Better still, I prefer to just dance.


"...This is the drama of Dharma succession, the transmission of light from one living Buddha to the next, from one generation to the next." Then Hixon goes on to state that all beings are simultaneously awakened - so what is the point of transmission?

One dancer picks up and twirls and releases another ...

[Fuken]

I see no beginning or ending. Shakyamuni receives transmission together with the ancestors and with you and I.

If we see it as a line in every single step, this is a wrong view. If we see it as a circle, this is also a wrong view. Seen as a single point might be closer to the truth. not even there? That would be denying what is right in front of the nose.

A quilt to keep a child warm, or a suit of armor to protect a warrior, or a bouquet of flowers to brighten up a room, or crown of thorns passed down from king to king.

Shakyamuni is just us.

Yours in Practice,
Jordan

[Shohei]

Shakyamuni may have been realized by the universe, 2500 +/- years ago, but if he were the beginning, he would also have to be the end. Sooo this: "I am Buddha, I am awakened" This is all encompassing, Shakyamuni being realized by the universe, no end or beginning- always ringing now and Now and Now.

After reading and contemplating and sometimes stumbling with what happened back then ... I have a good many lifetimes to live and die on the cushion and off before I understand this fully.
There is no back then. This separation translates in to light years apart and so I really still do not fully understand.

I'm really digging reading these both books as one btw. Very helpful.
Thank you all who went before and after me, I benefit greatly :D

Gassho
Shohei

[BrianW]

Thank you all who went before and after me, I benefit greatly :D

Yes indeed!

Such wonderful content in these books….such wonderful posts….I’m not sure I can add that much. A general theme I see is transformation with time being both linear and circular.

I am intrigued by the reference to the old plum tree. The thorns symbolic of suffering and flowers the enlightened mind. Perhaps a plum tree has some special significance? In any event, Keizan’s statement seemed more static, “A splendid branch issues from the old plum tree; At the same time, obstructing thorns issue everywhere.” In short, the “splendid branch” and the “obstructing thorns” are present at the same time. Hixon’s reference seems much more dynamic, “A single green branch springs from the gnarled trunk” “Now the plum branch is bearing fragrant blossoms.” “Miraculously fruit of every type comes forth.”

Gassho,
Jisen/BrianW

[Tb]

Hi.

I think Cook says it well in the words of Keizans Teisho,


If you say that you become enlightened with Gotama, or that Gotama becomes enlightened with you, this is not Gotama's enlightenement

So elegant, yet so true.
If you disperse of the notion of you-me, here-there and now-then, what have you got?

The clouds in the sky not blocking out the sun.

Mtfbwy
Fugen

[Hans]

Hello Folks,

just a thought that occured to me during reading Hixon's chapter (and I'm not the first one to have had this thought): If we de not believe that we are of the exact same essence as Shakyamuni in some way that would allow us to realize original enlightenment, we should drop all this Buddhism stuff and invest our time in something more useful, something more fun. If you are not the Buddha, who is? and if you're not it, why bother?

I really enjoy Hixon's style btw.

Gassho,

Hans

[monkton]

We begin at the beginning of the... where? Line/circle/point? No beginning, no 'there' to be there. So here we are - or maybe that should be, "here we is" in order to get away from the idea of our separateness.

As quilts go, the one covering us is fairly prickly, what with those thorns and all, but it does have the advantage of being all encompassing.


On the next day set aside for explanations, I want you to present your understanding with a decisive word. He's not asking for much in chapter one. I suspect we should try not to use 'and'.

Thank you for the contributions so far,

gassho,
Monkton

[JamesVB]

Does Shakyamuni receive Transmission from all the Ancestors? From you and me?

How does the "Treasury of the Eye of the True Dharma" get 'transmitted' to an 'Individual' when Shakyamuni purportedly stated "I & the great earth & beings simultaneously achieve the Way?"

1) To be transmitted requires a lineal migration of time.
2) To be transmitted from 'Individual' to an 'other individual' requires a deluded perception of multiple sentient beings.

Both statements 1 & 2 appear to contradict Guatama's exaltation upon deep awakening & Cook's description of the "principle of enlightenment" as written on the top of Pg. 31 of Transmitting the Light (TTL).

Isn't the concept of "Transmitting" a manifestation of attachment; isn't it an attempt to grasp or cling to an ideology named True Dharma?



Is it a quilt of many threads, covering us and keeping us warm?
viewtopic.php?p=36746#p36746 (http://http://www.treeleaf.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=36746#p36746)

Quilts can be pulled up over our heads in an attempt to blind our 'selves' to that which IS, and they can suffocate us.



May we, should we, need we even try to say?

Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi svaha! ...and there never was another shore on which to arrive.

[Silva]

I'm still floundering in deep water. Sometimes my head pops out and I can breath in some understanding but then I go back under again.
My head is full of questions which I cannot even formulate. I need a teacher.
All these beautiful words just shine for an instant and then disolve . Understanding intellectually, I don't care for commentaries how ever beautiful,
isn't enough for me. I wonder if enlightenment actually exists. How can enlightenment exist when there is nothing to enlighten? What is transmission without a subject to transmit ? What is transmission without an object to transmit to?
I just want to be able to say that I know this because this is my experience. How can I talk of a dish Iv'e never tasted ?
I need guidance towards living this experience myself.
I think I shall put these books on the shelf for now and get on with a Mind of Clover.

gassho

Sylvie

[jrh001]

It's mid-winter here, short dull days and infinitely long nights. Zen master Keizan asks for my decisive word of understanding. 'How do I tell him?' I think to myself. 'I really don't get it... at all.' I share some chocolate with him. Of course he knows I have nothing to say. Lucky for me he likes chocolate.

JohnH

[JamesVB]

I'm still floundering in deep water.
...Understanding intellectually, ..., isn't enough for me.
I wonder if enlightenment actually exists. ...
How can I talk of a dish Iv'e never tasted ? ...
gassho
Sylvie

Hi Sylvie,

After reading your post, the following quote by T. S. Eliot came to mind.


- We shall not cease from exploration. And the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.

If I thought that my journeys in life would only result in my arrival back at the beginning where I started from, I may never set out on the journey. I perceive the path to enlightenment to be just such a journey. One that leads us back to the place where we started, but a journey that leaves us with an altered perception such that we can know that-which-we-have-always-been for the first time.

Walk gently on your journey.

[Taigu]

Salut Sylvie,

Souhairerais-tu t'entretenir avec moi...N'hesite pas. Nous pourrions utiliser Skype. Voici mon email: turlurpierre@hotmail.com (http://mailto:turlurpierre@hotmail.com)

bien a toi


gassho


Taigu

[Silva]

Merci Taigu,

certainement oui!



Lucky for me he likes chocolate.


Last night Keizan curtly said "No chocolate here, not even a sweet !" and walked out of the room. I searched the pantry, found cooking chocolate, melted and stirred in cream, served in a small bowl and brought it to him, he chuckled...
What a relief!

gassho,

Sylvie

[Taigu]

Sylie,

J'attends que tu me contactes...email moi.

gassho


Taigu

[jrh001]

...
Last night Keizan curtly said "No chocolate here, not even a sweet !" and walked out of the room. I searched the pantry, found cooking chocolate, melted and stirred in cream, served in a small bowl and brought it to him, he chuckled...
What a relief!

:) It's good to find some relief. I had a pleasant cup of tea with Ryokan today.

gassho,

JohnH

[Genkai]

Shohei mentioned it's great reading these books two-as-one... isn't it greater still to have this forum, now reading three-as-one? Or really with each individual, dozens-as-one? Or perhaps the greater lesson is it's just all one.

I've been reading and re-reading and re-visitng all week. Keizan seems to be challenging the reader to dare to comprehend. Hixon picks up where he left off, neither exactly speaking in riddles, but at the same time working very hard to make us work hard...

All so that the reader doesn't merely absorb facts and data and dates/places/times like reading a history textbook. There's meaning wrapped in meaning wrapped in meaning throughout both texts, challenging every step of the way. What these texts are saying isn't merely printed ink on paper. Or maybe I'm over-thinking it...

I've been all over the place, and right here the whole time. Shakyamuni was a man who lived way back then and way over there... but enlightenment, awakening, that perception and knowing of reality, isn't limited by places and times and linear thinking. At the moment of awakening, there's no longer a body sitting under a tree called Gautama, there's a greater (different) being, transcending times, places, linear thinking. And yet the body sitting under the tree walked and sat and ate and slept and (most importantly) taught for 40 more years.

On one hand, he was the first in the line. On the same hand, he and and the entire line are one in the same. All a matter of perspectives, all equally right. Transmission from body to body can be linear, while transmission from awakened being to awakened being (or all beings?) can be wide open with no such limits and artificial boundaries. All a matter of perspective, if your mind is open to unfamiliar/unconditioned perspectives, there are no limits to the understandings.

My answer to each of Jundo's questions posed in the first post: "Yes."

[Taigu]

Hi Peter,

Teachers of old don't speak in riddles, they speak about what cannot be spoken of, the ineffable itself. The language is pointing at the space-being-wide-open who is eveyone of us. Indeed, you caught a glimpse that what these texts are talking about is not printed on paper.

What is the color of your eyes? how far can you stretch your arm? as you sitBuddha, who is left to see, what can be seen?


And you don't need to work so hard.

gassho

Taigu

[Jikyo]

And you don't need to work so hard.



Thanks for this reminder, dear Taigu. It seems we all need to hear this now and again. :D

Gassho, Jikyo

[Shugen]

Still dragging behind......

While reading it's "yes yes yes" "A-ha!". Two days later, "huh". I think I need to reread. I am enjoying the three perspectives Peter spoke of. Not right or wrong perhaps but more different ways of perceiving/understanding the same words.

Ron

[Shogen]

Before Shak This! After Shak This! Thanks you old dog of a pointer. What a wonderous dance. Gassho Shogen

[Nick B]

Please note I am useing Transmission of Light by Thomas Cleary.

"Shakyamuni Buddha realized enlightenment on seeing the morning star. He said"I and all beings on earth together attain enlightenment at the same time."

How could the Buddha attain enlightenment together with all beings at the same time?

Did he perceive an endless sea of awareness in which there was a complete unity in duality?

Did he simply experience the extinction of his self consciousness and noticed that with the extinction of his self consciousness he did not perceive the world as being made up of independent selves?

"With just one robe and one bowl, he lacked nothing."

Thank you very much Taigu.

"That is to say, I is not Shakyamuni Buddha-even Shakyamuni Buddha comes from this I. And it does not only give birth to Shayamuni Buddha -all beings on earth also come from here."

The sense of self our self consciousness is not our essential self (Shakyamuni), the Personality of Shakyamuni as an independent being is born from this self consciousness and this self consciousness not only gives birth to Shakyamuni but when one looks out into the world and sees a sea of independent individual beings that too arises from one's sense of self or self consciousness.

"However immensely diverse the mountains, rivers, land and all forms and appearances may be, all of them are in the eye of the Buddha."

What is the Buddha eye?

Is it that all phenomena arise in the mirror of the mind which is one's essential self which is at once selfless?

"Is the Buddha enlightened with you?"

The Buddha has always been there shining in its original nature, how can it become enlightened?

"Are you enlightened with the Buddha?"

There is no self that is enlightened.

"Even so, I and together are neither one nor two."

"Neither one" means things are not perceived as a mystical unity, meaning grass is grass and trees are trees.

"Nor two" means that all phenomena have the same flavor the Buddha which is empty of self.

"While the seasons come and go, and mountains, rivers, and land change with the times, you should know that this is Buddha raising his eyebrows and blinking his eyes-so it is the unique body revealed in myriad forms."

The world in which we live and have our being is the dynamic nature of mind.

"One branch stands out on the old apricot tree, Thorns come forth at the same time."

When a particular self is grasped out of the sea of life, suffering is born that very moment.