Author: AlanChapman
Forum: Dharma Overground Discussion Forum

To what extent do you believe observing the three characteristics is fundamental to achieving fruition?

In a recent thread (Vipassana vs the Suttas) the question was asked 'what does ultimately lead to Nibbana? Seeing the Three Characteristics or understanding Dependent Origination?!' The resounding reply was that they are both the same thing, but I would like to propose that any idea of a fundamental characteristic to reality is nothing of the sort, as fruition clearly demonstrates. For those of you who believe the Buddha's teachings offer the truth, do you not think that the three characteristics would present themselves by any serious investigation of reality, as opposed to reqiuring perceptual cultivation?

Consider Centred Prayer, Maharshi's Self-Enquiry and Gurdjieff's Fourth Way. None of them offer the others' 'fundamental' or 'absolute' characteristics of reality, but each leads to fruition (I'm speaking from experience). In light of this, I'm of the opinion that simply observing reality is the key to the progress of insight, and vipassana (looking for the three characteristics) is just one more method for keeping the mind present and attentive, just like consenting to God's presence, finding the feeling of self or 'splitting the attention' . Taking any methodology for the truth is inherently problematic and the mess surrounding 'no-self' and emptiness is a prime example.

Don't get me wrong here - I'm not dismissing vipassana (on the contrary, I love it!); rather I am highlighting what I believe is a dogma developed from something that should have remained an injunction.

Thoughts?

Nice intro to this important subject, Alan. I will approach this issue from a perspective of wider Buddhist tradition. The problem arising with three characteristics is of semantic and interpretative nature. Namely, the three characteristics are NOT a description of "reality", which is indeed obvious when we have a look at the four seals of the View, as follows:

All compounded things are impermanent.
All phenomena lack self-nature.
All dualistic experience is intrinsically painful.
Nirvana alone is peace, and is beyond concept.

The first three lines, obviously, refer to the three "lakshana" - characteristics, signs, or marks. These three actually refer to everything that can be witnessed, made an object of awareness, and of "any serious investigation" as you propose. Now, to "investigate reality", one need to also consider that which never becomes an object, and therefore escapes this methodology, but does however reveal itself once self-recognized as already obvious. The approach to this recognition does indeed differ among traditions, as it does differ among Buddhist traditions themselves. Indeed, many of which do not work with three characteristics, but all of which lead to three doors of liberation (signless, desireless, and emptiness) which are sometimes, but not exclusively, connected to the three characteristics in a one-to-one manner. As made clear by the fourth line, reality in its ultimate aspect transcends (yet includes) the three characteristics (as well as their opposites, which give content to wholly different methodologies).

(cont.)

When the ultimate is referred to from the perspective of the relative, then three characteristics are used which neither describe the relative itself (that being more properly done by dependent co-arising), nor the ultimate, but are instead used as path (this corresponds somewhat to the via negativa, or the apophatic approach); other Buddhist vehicles equally use a positive language (corresponding to via positiva, or the cataphatic approach) whence Nirvana itself - the fourth line - is described as "self, purity, eternity, and bliss" but again in a special sense.

Now, methodology shouldn't be taken for the truth, as you say, unless we're clear which truth it refers to. There is the twofold truth, but there is also the threefold scheme known as basis, path, and fruit (or fruition). The three characteristics belong to the truth of the path, and specifically to the method and not the wisdom. There are stages in the relationship of relative and ultimate (e.g. five ranks of Tozan in Zen are a good example) and the language used always involves some paradox in absence of fruition.

As to your remark that "looking for the three characteristics is just one more method for keeping the mind present and attentive", this also requires some qualification. Technically, "keeping the mind present and attentive" may mean different things in different methodologies. In Buddhism, presence and attentiveness is generally known as shamatha (pali: samatha), sometimes referred simply as "calm", and the three characteristics are specifically used in a way that is referred to as vipashyana (pali: vipassana), referred to simply as "insight" or "seeing".

(cont.)

Insight may indeed be into the three characteristics, but also may be into the ineffable nature of mind ("suchness"), or even into the inseparability of the three characteristics and suchness itself, and that's why interpretation becomes crucial in the process of realization, and what is usually understood as "fruition" is only the beginning of an integrative process, a rather long road for most. Specifically, seeing the three characteristics is not identified with seeing the reality as it is, the three being precisely referred to [in Western translations] as "characteristics of existence", and existence not being identical with ultimate reality. As clear from the four seals, impermanence refers to compounded phenomena, lack of self-nature to all phenomena, and suffering to dualistic experience. (As to the fourth line, there's the Heart sutra as a widely available entry point.)

Meditation (both calm and insight) is necessary but not enough, and concepts used in the path are balanced by the View, without which methodology easily becomes a dogma. Just as, without practice, the View itself degenerates into mere doctrine.

Author: AlanChapman

Thanks for such a detailed response Hokai.

I’ve always been a massive fan of the apophatic approach, the pinnacle of which for me is the Greek school (the One who cannot be hypothesized, etc). I have massive difficulty believing the cataphatic approach is useful in any sense beyond providing a convenient description. It never occurred to me that the method of the three characteristics might have more in common with philosophy (and I mean that in the original sense of the word, as an intellectual method of enlightenment) than straight forward attention and presence.

Would you say then that it is the continued contemplation of the three characteristics as they relate to the sensate world (and thereby making vipassana a contemplative practice in the true sense of the word) rather than maintaining presence/attention that is the main focus of vipassana? Would I be wrong to consider ‘noting’ as the same method, different surface features?

It might seem beside the point whether we consider vipassana as a largely attentive/presence practice or mostly a contemplative exercise – but I think such a distinction might certainly help when it comes to evaluating exactly what is performed when it comes to vipassana, and its expected results. For instance, I know practitioners, whose sole method of insight is vipassana, who have acheived fruition but have never experienced a preceding ‘door’ (I’ve experimented with many methods and I’ve noticed what occurs in a relative sense around fruition seems largely dependent on what method is used). I know skill in observation plays a part, but might apprehension of the three doors require the attention resting more on the contemplative aspect as opposed to the arising and passing sensations?

Alan: "I’ve always been a massive fan of the apophatic approach, the pinnacle of which for me is the Greek school (the One who cannot be hypothesized, etc). I have massive difficulty believing the cataphatic approach is useful in any sense beyond providing a convenient description."

In this case we're talking about a practice-injunction, not an attempt to describe. The three characteristics allow one's attention to move beyond what's initially observed into the actual nature of the whole display, including eventually the self-aware observer, as the most subtle recoil in consciousness. The resultant clarity, however, goes beyond them, and is known, somewhat enigmatically, as "final release" - first FROM boundary defined, separate vantage point, and then INTO everything felt and known, AS everything felt and known.

In absence of such View, however, the three characteristics (forgetting the fourth seal of the View) tend to become solidified as THE description of what reality is like, and produce a rather flat insight, limited to negating phenomena and self, and unable to redeem both as gestures of the ultimate. The point is, what conceals reality for some, reveals it for others, hence the oft used metaphor (and not just metaphor) of dreams.

Alan: "Would you say then that it is the continued contemplation of the three characteristics as they relate to the sensate world (and thereby making vipassana a contemplative practice in the true sense of the word) rather than maintaining presence/attention that is the main focus of vipassana? Would I be wrong to consider ‘noting’ as the same method, different surface features?"

Definitely, though you're making a distinction that, however useful and mostly necessary, persists only at initial stages of cultivation. Instead of either/or, let's consider the potential of both/and, wherein presence-attention allows one to make reflective distinctions relating to the range of observation. But you're quite right in making the next point, regarding expected results.

Alan: "I know skill in observation plays a part, but might apprehension of the three doors require the attention resting more on the contemplative aspect as opposed to the arising and passing sensations?"

This specific discrimination hinges on the exact meaning of contemplation (a word rarely used in Buddhist circles), but I can see what you're pointing to. I believe the same distinction can be made by employing the difference between event-perspective (what is arising) and mind-perspective (the nature of the state witnessing what is arising, namely awareness itself). These two are implicit, though one chooses which one to engage in any given practice. In fact, most practices allow only one of these, while some practices emphasize them as different stages. Any thoughts?

I'm enjoying the geeky conversation here guys!

Though, I suspect others who have some experience with fruitions could say more about this, my experience with experiencing one of the preceding three doors in the moments prior to fruition seems largely dependent on the level of concentration/samadhi I have during that time. During most fruitions, especially when I'm not on retreat, I don't notice any of the three doors, and sometimes may not even notice the fruition!

On retreat, when I'm powering the one-pointed concentration though, I will often notice one of the three doors. In addition, during big fruitions--one's that seem indicative of larger and enduring shifts of identity--there is often a recognition (after the fact of course) of one of the doors. I suspect that many people's concentration isn't strong enough to notice the preceding doors, or more likely, people don't know what to look for and thus miss it that way.

But if the distinction you are making, with "contemplative aspect" vs. "arising and passing sensations", here is akin to insight vs. concentration then I would say that this definitely seems to have some impact on how fruition and the moments leading up to it are experienced. :-D

Author: AlanChapman

Alan: "I’ve always been a massive fan of the apophatic approach…I have massive difficulty believing the cataphatic approach is useful in any sense beyond providing a convenient description."

Hokai: In this case we're talking about a practice-injunction, not an attempt to describe.

Indeed, which is my point – the three characteristics are a practical injunction and prohibit ascribing any idea to emptiness, which certainly helps with the ‘final release’ as you call it. My problem is with ascribing positive attributes as a means to enlightenment. Reminds of the direct path nonsense of repeating ‘I am God’…

I’m using the term ‘contemplation’ to mean intellectual or rational methods of enlightenment (Korean Buddhism, Philosophical Midwifery, etc). I’m not making the distinction to posit one method above another, or to argue which one is ‘best’; I’m just trying to get a handle on the difference between, say Zazen (which I consider attentive/present) and vipassana (as investigating the three characteristics), both of which I would have previously considered insight practice.

Author: AlanChapman

Hokai: I believe the same distinction can be made by employing the difference between event-perspective (what is arising) and mind-perspective (the nature of the state witnessing what is arising, namely awareness itself). These two are implicit, though one chooses which one to engage in any given practice. In fact, most practices allow only one of these, while some practices emphasize them as different stages. Any thoughts?

This is the root of the problem for me: both the event-perspective and mind-perspective are one and the same thing, namely an experience to be observed. For instance, if you simply observe what is arising, how do you fail to include the nature of the state witnessing what is arising during the practice? How is swapping (for example) a physical sensation for a mental sensation any indication of progress? And this is the reason I questioned the nature of observing the three characteristics as perhaps a method that encourages the attention to remain present and resting on immediate sensations.

Perhaps I need to make a further distinction. By attentive/present I really mean allowing all and any sensations to arise and pass of their own accord; not restricting the attention to a single object (although again – I see the use of keeping the attention on the breath during certain insight practices as a means of keeping present, whilst also observing all and any sensations that arise. The difference for me between insight and concentration practice is the degree of exclusivity exercised by the attention).

Author: AlanChapman

Hello VJ!

‘I'm enjoying the geeky conversation here guys!’

Talking of geeks, I’m a big fan of your podcast!

I’d never considered the intensity of the phenomenon of the three doors being dependent upon strength of concentration, which of course makes a great deal of sense. To what extent then do you believe the three doors are fundamental to fruition? For instance, say I was a Christian monk who achieved fruition using centred prayer, if I had a great deal of concentration skill, would I still experience something similar to the three doors? Or do you see them as a shallow feature whose perception is cultivated partly through the act of looking for them and partly through the amount of concentration ‘energy’ applied to the act, peculiar to the method of vipassana?

‘during big fruitions--one's that seem indicative of larger and enduring shifts of identity--there is often a recognition (after the fact of course) of one of the doors.’

I know exactly what you mean – this has been my only experience of the three doors, a possible recognition of one of them after the event. I’ve made progress when it comes to insight, but I’ve never been on retreat and my samatha is not all that hot, so your post has certainly made a lot of sense to me.

I’m gearing up for some hardcore samatha practice (I’ve always seen straight up samatha as sort of pointless considering I need never master the jhanas and still get enlightened, but I’ve recently decided to master nerodhi as I’m intent on understanding what role it plays in the process of insight) so it will be interesting to see what effect this has on my experience of fruition.

Back to your "massive difficulty believing the cataphatic approach is useful in any sense beyond providing a convenient description", plus "problem with ascribing positive attributes as a means to enlightenment". Of course, you confess these present difficulty and problem for you personally, but you also suggest you can't grasp their usefulness in any case. Now, this could in itself be an effective obstacle, since the ultimate - i.e. that to which and as which we ought to awaken - is signified by neither negative, nor affirmative notions. These are all intimations and injunctions, and they are best understood comparatively, though one could also understand them by application and thorough consummation of each.

The popular cliche being with the finger "pointing" at the moon, where we easily forget that it's not the finger doing the pointing. Finger only signifies the pointing action. Which is - AGAIN - a 3rd person approach to attention. Therefore, we have a finger raised as if saying "Watch!" and inducing a presence turned neither within nor without, neither towards nor away from... But I guess my point is clear.

It's "easy" and "natural" for anyone to develop a spontaneous liking and bias to either the negative or the affirmative approach to awakening. What is revealed in awakening transcends both of these, and yet it can and should be expressed in both ways, not just to step down and include those that can't grasp negations. (Indeed, our ultimate nature is empty of confusion, but it's categorically not empty of wisdom.) The relationship between these two is, in my view, similar to that of the ascending and descending currents: we integrate the two, being identified with neither, and pursuing our practices as either. What we realize, however, is beyond delimitation and demarcation (see the fourth line again) and yet is present in any event.

(cont.)

While we're at it, there's an interesting correlation to this matter in the way the Buddhist tradition has revolutionized its own relevance and integrity by shifting the description, and thus making it less opaque, more limpid. First, there was a more or less literal description of the relative, eschewing direct reference to the ultimate whenever practically possible (so much so that realization is called cessation). Then there was a description of the ultimate through a series of negations, wherein all sorts of dharmic and spiritual signposts are deconstructed and relinquished to make space for genuine suchness. Then came a tradition of actually listing the previously ineffable qualities contained in this forever-peaceful-yet-always-dynamic suchness, but not in a way that theistic systems posit their godly qualities at a level below the ineffable. This affirmative approach isn't simplistic or naive at all. However, I believe it requires a certain degree of sophistication, in terms of both practice and interpretation, as exemplified in the abuses of virtually every nondual teaching.

Author: xsurf

I do not see bare attention and investigating the 3 characteristics as separate. Because awareness is not an observer but is all transient manifestation, investigating the 3 characteristics is directly experiencing the nature of awareness/Presence/manifestation itself, as impermanence, suffering, no-self. In essence, there is no one/no watcher, only self-luminous phenomena arising & passing momentarily.

Also, this is not to say that self-inquiry is less useful than vipassana (also how one practices self inquiry differs), but in my friend's experience self-inquiry only led him to the I AM/Witness level of experience, and further insights into non-duality was gained through practicing vipassana. He wrote his 'six stages of experience': http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

A convo from the friend on Vipassana:

(12:21 AM) Thusness: what is the role of insight meditation?
(12:22 AM) Thusness: why bare attention?
(12:22 AM) Thusness: why naked awareness?
(12:22 AM) Thusness: when insight meditation is taught and buddha said when hearing just the sound...this and that...
(12:23 AM) Thusness: what buddha wanted is to experience directly what awareness is, the arising, the ceasing, the clarity, the non-dual nature
(12:23 AM) Thusness: in DO (Dependent Origination)
(12:24 AM) Thusness: not to note it with thought or place any conclusion on any experience.
(12:25 AM) Thusness: "this is impermanence" is not about noting and place any conclusion about an phenomenon arising.
(12:26 AM) Thusness: but experience impermanence directly, not in words
(12:26 AM) Thusness: be impermanence and know what is it really...
(12:26 AM) Thusness: see what clarity is, not what it should be
(12:27 AM) Thusness: it is luminous and yet empty...experience it directly...it is so.
(12:27 AM) Thusness: break the solidity until there is no holding simply thus.

Alan Chapman wrote "I’m using the term ‘contemplation’ to mean intellectual or rational methods of enlightenment (Korean Buddhism, Philosophical Midwifery, etc)."

Not sure what you mean here? Why are you singling out Korean Buddhism? Do you have a specific sect of Korean Budd. in mind?

Author: AlanChapman

If we were to take rationalising emptiness or enlightenment as far as it can go, we end up saying it neither is nor is not positive or negative (or anything else for that matter). But this expression, as given by nagarjuna and (in my humble opinion) to a more profound extent by Plotinus is in fact the pinnacle of the apophatic approach. I certainly see the benefit of using the cataphatic approach as a convenience when it comes to discussing enlightenment - I have no problem saying it is blissful, peaceful, the Truth with a big T, and so on. But I have never come across a rational method using the positive approach to achieve insight. My knowledge of Buddhism is far from extensive - do you know of any rational cataphatic methods?

Author: AlanChapman

xsurf: 'I do not see bare attention and investigating the 3 characteristics as separate. Because awareness is not an observer but is all transient manifestation, investigating the 3 characteristics is directly experiencing the nature of awareness/Presence/manifestation itself, as impermanence, suffering, no-self. In essence, there is no one/no watcher, only self-luminous phenomena arising & passing momentarily.'

I agree with this in a theoretical sense, and I'm guessing this is self evident for the arahat; but in a practical sense, would you not admit that when practicng samatha (or someting similar) you do not observe the three characteristics? As such, I would agrue there is a very real practical difference between attention and vipassana.

Author: AlanChapman

In referencing Korean Buddhism, I specifically mean the work of Chinul. Check out 'The collected works of Chinul: the Korean approach to Zen' (if you can get a copy that is - they're pretty rare these days). I'm singling out Chinul because his approach is more or less a method of using intellectual reflection to attain insight (just like Philosophy used to be).

Alan: "do you know of any rational cataphatic methods?"

What exactly do you mean by rational method in this case? In Buddhist contexts, intellectual inquiry is rarely used on its own to ascertain the fundamental characteristics, or especially the ultimate. Direct experience is always encouraged which would by necessity include non-conceptual first hand insights, and these tend to escape strict rational criteria as understood conventionally.

Plus, Stuart is at home with Chinul as anyone. I'm sure he'll have something to say.:-)

Author: AlanChapman

Sorry Hokai, I guess I’ve been rather unclear in my previous posts.

Whenever I’ve mentioned ‘rational’ or ‘intellectual’ method, (I rather clumsily referred to it as ‘contemplative’ at first), I’ve been specifically talking about gaining the experience of Fruition using a technique based solely on intellectual reflection (but as a meditative discipline or through dialogue).

I know for some such an idea is preposterous – surely I can’t be suggesting you can think your way to enlightenment?

But that is precisely the original nature of the Greek school, specifically Platonism, which today is nothing but a dead ontology. For anyone interested in such methods, and how Korean Buddhism relates to this, I wholeheartedly recommend checking out the work of Pierre Grimes:

http://www.philosophicalmidwifery.com/

Here’s one of his videos where he discusses Korean Buddhism and how it relates to Philosophy (Pierre is actually the Dharma Successor to Myo Bong, the Patriarchal Dharma successor of Venerable Hye-Am, the 33rd patriarch from Lin Chi):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YIZpe-fgXI

Author: AlanChapman

Alan: "do you know of any rational cataphatic methods?"

Hokai: ‘What exactly do you mean by rational method in this case?’

By rational method I mean a technique for gaining Fruition through intellectual reflection, as outlined in the preceding post. So what I meant earlier when discussing apophatic method was an actual method of enlightenment based on negative reflection.

Hokai: ‘In Buddhist contexts, intellectual inquiry is rarely used on its own to ascertain the fundamental characteristics, or especially the ultimate.’

Would you say Nagarjuna or Korean Buddhism are exceptions? Or would you argue I’m overstating the role of intellectual reflection in this case, which I may very well be doing?

Hokai: ‘Direct experience is always encouraged which would by necessity include non-conceptual first hand insights, and these tend to escape strict rational criteria as understood conventionally.’

As you’re aware by now, I am talking about direct experience, not just theorising/speculation.

Hokai: ‘Plus, Stuart is at home with Chinul as anyone. I'm sure he'll have something to say.:-)’

I look forward to it – I would really like to learn a lot more about Chinul and his methods.

Alan: "I know for some such an idea is preposterous – surely I can’t be suggesting you can think your way to enlightenment? But that is precisely the original nature of the Greek school, specifically Platonism, which today is nothing but a dead ontology."

Good points, Alan. Well, I hope they're having a good time (those who'd say thought as path is preposterous). You can ANYTHING your way to enlightenment! Because that to which we awaken is never separate from anything whatsoever. Your odds, though, are something to consider. And the Buddhist tradition suggests the three-in-one without "extremes" (view, ethical discipline, meditation) is the supreme way. There are those among Buddhists, who emphasize any one of the three, just as there are those who synthesize them all in something else (deity in Vajrayana). Nagarjuna as studied by Gelugpa (or esp. Kadampa) would surely emphasize intellectual study, but not excluding meditation as the very consummation of thought. I'll let Stuart comment on Chinul's Son.

But when you mention "the original nature of the Greek school", this tradition has been discontinued, even in important schools (such as Platonism), and we cannot guess on their modus operandi safely, since many important aspects are never mentioned in texts (being implied or culturally transmitted). But I would guess that company of the wise, namely wordless transmission of realization through prolonged intimacy was an important aspect of their discipleship, which has remained a rather elite affair.

As to Grimes and Midwifery and reference to Son etc. There is a number of ways any school of Buddhism can be unpacked to create a variety of convincing perspectives on Truth. I'm not familiar with this one. The original Buddhist orientation, if I may argue, has always been how it's DONE - the "what is taught" arising out of that quite naturally, according to circumstances. Thanks!

Author: AlanChapman

Thanks Hokai, I've thoroughly enjoyed our conversation!

Author: AlanChapman

Sorry, forgot to mention one thing:

Hokai: 'But when you mention "the original nature of the Greek school", this tradition has been discontinued, even in important schools (such as Platonism), and we cannot guess on their modus operandi safely, since many important aspects are never mentioned in texts (being implied or culturally transmitted). But I would guess that company of the wise, namely wordless transmission of realization through prolonged intimacy was an important aspect of their discipleship, which has remained a rather elite affair.'

It is very true that the traditon has been discontinued, by Grimes' efforts in rehabilitating the tradition is rooted firmly in the texts themselves and the modus operandi evident in those texts (namely the teacher/pupil relationship you mention). For instance, the Republic is a complete spiritual manual including instructions, although a thorough grounding in analogy is reqiured to make use of it. I do believe most people assume the extensive Platonic legacy to be incomplete because they see a clear distinction between reflection and practical exercise, not realising it is the process of reflection, when performed correctly (say using the Dialectic), that is the 'practical' instruction. Grimes has revived the method of Philosophical Midwifery, and my own experience of this method suggests it is a profound system (it certainly helped disabuse me of many false beliefs). I do hope one day I'll get the chance to pursue this practice in more depth.

Alan wrote: “In referencing Korean Buddhism, I specifically mean the work of Chinul. Check out 'The collected works of Chinul: the Korean approach to Zen' (if you can get a copy that is - they're pretty rare these days). I'm singling out Chinul because his approach is more or less a method of using intellectual reflection to attain insight (just like Philosophy used to be).

Luckily, I have “The Collected Works of Chinul. ” I think it is one of the more complete books on Zen practice.

I have to differ with you on your view of Chinul and his practice. Chinul was the first Korean Son (Chan) master to adopt the hwadu system of Ta-hui. It becomes for him the main practice and his favored practice. It is definitely not true for the latter years of his life that he was using “intellectual reflection to attain insight (just like Philosophy used to be).”

But even prior to that, I do think this was the case with him. I believe he talked about the many aspects of practice and as is common since in Korean Zen as was the case in much of China until perhaps the 12th century and the dominance of the Lin-chi sect, where learning (the sutras, sastras, and commentaries) and practice were seen as two sides of the same coin. Chinul’s first of three enlightenments comes while reading a few lines in the Platfrom Sutra: ”The self nature of suchness gives rise to thoughts. But even though the six sense faculties see, hear, sense, and know, it is not tainted by the myriads of images. The true nature is constantly free and self reliant.” He becomes overjoyed at what he never experienced before. I don’t see the “intellectual reflection” you mention here but rather a ripening of a practicing mind being opened by a phrase. From that time on his mind was adverse to fame and profit.

Chinul, in all his futrue writings, stressed the need for an initial awakening to the mind-nature to insure the development of practice.

Author: AlanChapman

Slachs: ‘I have to differ with you on your view of Chinul and his practice. Chinul was the first Korean Son (Chan) master to adopt the hwadu system of Ta-hui. It becomes for him the main practice and his favored practice. It is definitely not true for the latter years of his life that he was using “intellectual reflection to attain insight (just like Philosophy used to be).”’

I was of the impression that the shortcut approach of hwadu investigation involved reflecting upon dialogue between a master and pupil (just like philosophy) with an investigation of either the meaning or the actual words used, until the intellectual faculty itself becomes exhausted allowing realisation to occur. If this is indeed the case, I would say that Chinul’s practice was fundamentally a method of “intellectual reflection to attain insight”.

Of course, I have been guilty of generalising somewhat; I’m aware that Chinul taught a number of methods suitable for a variety of practitioners (as a means of unifying the various Buddhist schools?), of which hwadu is but one. I would have to say though (and my opinion is probably coloured by the fact it was Grimes who turned me on to Chinul) that intellectual reflection certainly played a role in Chinul’s first enlightenment (and in light of my comments above, his last one too).

What do you make of the parallels between Chinul’s stages of development and the Theravada model? Although Chinul emphasised a shortcut to awakening at the beginning of a practitioners development in order to replace faith in enlightenment with certainty, and thereby greatly increasing the students’ likelihood of staying the course, it sounds just like first path to me.

Also, have you used the hwadu method yourself? If so, how have you found it?

Hi Alan,
My internet was down today and shortly I am about to leave for Mexico. I hope to answer your post in a few days. I think you have a mistaken view of the hwadu, at least as I have used it, and understand it. I might add, your view seems to be a common (mis)understanding that I have seen expressed by a number of academics at conferences.

Author: AlanChapman

Well, personal direct experience trumps academic research any day (which is the extent of my experience of Chinul so far), and so no doubt your understanding of the subject is infintely greater than mine. As such, I look forward to your reply!

Just for the record, any opinion I have expressed in this thread regarding Chinul is strictly my own and in no way reflects Grimes' presentation of the teachings of his lineage. Out of interest, what did you make of the video I linked to?

Hi Alan,

Sorry to take so long in replying.
I think part of the discussion as to philosophical investigation playing a part in Chinul's enlightenment or any one's enlightenment for that matter is part of the larger question of "mediated experience." I think religious experience is not totally unmediated so there is always an element of mediation to a religious experience. Buddhists have Buddhist experiences and Catholics have Catholic experiences and so it goes. There is much to discuss here. Steven Katz has three edited books on the subject and I recommend them all, though I like one the best, but being a way from home now, I forget which one it is .

In Far eastern Buddhism I believe it is pretty much an accepted understanding that there are limitations to conceptual reasoning and the necessity of intuitive practice and insight.
I think this is the case in Chan/Son/Zen, Tien-tai, Tendai, Huayan, Pure Land,...

Chinul following the Chinese Tsung-mi favored sudden enlightenment followed by gradual cultivation as opposed to the Hung chou (Ma- tsu) schools sudden enlightenment sudden cultivation.
However, though Chinul's gradual cultivation included textual study, it importantly included the necessity of intuitive practice. Gradual cultivation does not dismiss intuitive practice, just as in reality, neither did the Hung-chou school. It was more rhetorical than anything else. Ma- tsu, Huang -po and Lin-chi were all familiar with the sutras and quoted them widely.
Chinul later in his life gave special place to hwadu practice. It became his favored practice.

part 2

Now to the hwadu or hwa-tou in Chinese. There are many hua-tou: who am I, who is dragging this corpse around, who is repeating the Buddha's name, what is mu or wu, ... The focus is on the "who" or what" or "mu"...It is not a philosophical question or discussion with yourself. Rather, it is asking the "who" with a questioning mind . Eventually, the "who" will go by itself.

Hwa-tou practice is based on three aspects:
great faith, great energy, and great doubt. By faith is meant the belief in your own Buddha nature and too, that the method is valid for you and that you believe you can practice this way, great energy means this is important to you and that you will be diligent in pusueing the hua-tou and be willing to expand energy to that end, great doubt is considered the key to the practice of the hua-tou. This means one has develop the doubt as to what the hua-tou means. This doubt has to be deepened and deepened still further and further until all your doubts in life collapse into this one doubt- the hua-tou. At that point nothing exists except the doubt, which is like a truck or locomotive racing down a track. If one can stay with this there is a good chance one will break through in an intuitive understanding/seeing/experience of Chan.

The method consists in looking at the hua-tou with an inquiring mind. At first answers will appear but they should ALL be discarded and one should keep asking with a questioning mind. Don't think you will give an answer, but rather, that the hua-tou will answer. It is important to keep the inquiring mind. At first, often the hua-tou is like a mantra that is really keeping wondering or scattered thoughts at bay, but that is not really hua-tou practice. One shouldtry and keep the hua-tou with them as often as is possible. Though it is not a good idea to drive while practicing or to be doing physically active actions.

part 3

Most people sooner or later get stopped by fear. As the mind settles down and thoughts fall a way all that is left is the hua-tou. This can get to be a subtle state but people often feel as if they will fall into a black hole - to go poof- to be no more and disappear. It is frightening so people stop the practice in a variety of ways: could be laughing, or thinking how profound their state is, or with deep compassionate thoughts for others, or crying,... whatever, the practice is stopped and so is the fear. Time to begin again!

Another state that is a problem in hua-tou practice is getting too comfortable- enjoying the quiet, being able to play at ease in a mental blissful state. Though in one sense it is a sign of a steady mind, a good sign, but there is no doubt, which is the key to the practice. This state can be extremely blissful. I once entered it and refused to leave it for a fair amount of time, even though my teacher at the time kept telling me to leave. I finally left for whatever reason and laughed as I realized what a complete waste of time it was.

So the practice is to keep asking the hua- tou with a questioning mind and to continue as all thoughts drop away and to keep the doubt growing until it turns into great doubt- where all your doubts collapse into one doubt-the doubt then becomes like a racing
locomotive going down a railroad track. At that point there is no you or other or anything else- it is only doubt..

It is good to keep in mind that the Chan insight is not a "oneness" experience. Oneness means there s still a "me" to be experiencing the world/the one. A sense of "oneness" is often mistaken for a Chan experience.
-----------------
I am not familiar with the Theravada model. My area of practice and study has been Far Eastern Budd.

I only viewed one part of the Grimes 6 part youtube video. I was not taken with the part I saw.

Sounds just like what in Theravada terms would be a deep samatha (concentration) state. It's only a waste of time if you intended to do insight meditation in that time, in my opinion.

Cheers,
Florian

Author: AlanChapman

Hello Stuart,

Thanks for such a lengthy reply, I found it useful!

So with hua-tou the emphasis is on holding on to the sensation of enquiry?

I don’t know if you are familiar with Maharshi’s Self Enquiry (I’ve enjoyed quite a bit of success with the technique), but the process sounds very similar. However, with Self Enquiry the object is to seek the subjective sensation of being someone, what Maharshi called the ‘I’ thought (although this shouldn’t be confused with the actual thought ‘I’). This can be facilitated by asking ‘Who am I?’ and similar questions (a bit like those questions given in your example), but the point is not to hold on to the feeling of enquiry, but to hold on to the subjective feeling of self. Eventually this gives way to a state where thoughts cease to arise, and with persistence this in turn will give way to realisation, which sounds similar to the process you outline above.

Maharshi was considered (and considered himself) a jnana yogi, as is Grimes by his teacher Myo-Bong. Would you argue that hua-tou should not be considered a similar method of jnana yoga?

Shame you don’t dig Grimes – I think he has a lot to offer!

(cont.)

Author: AlanChapman

‘In Far eastern Buddhism I believe it is pretty much an accepted understanding that there are limitations to conceptual reasoning and the necessity of intuitive practice and insight.’

I think maybe I’ve failed to explain what I mean by an intellectual means of acquiring insight (again). I simply mean employing a method that primarily uses the intellectual faculty. I do not mean mistaking a rational conclusion with insight. As you can see with the Maharshi example given above, his method is jnana yoga - a means to enlightenment using the intellectual faculty; it is not simply a matter of accepting a rational concept for enlightenment, but receiving an ‘intuitive’ (I prefer the term metaphysical) experience through reflection.

Of course philosophy is a different kind of jnana yoga, in that it is a method of reaching the same silent and blissful states (and eventually insight) but through working with (as opposed to circumventing through concentration) the reasoning faculty. The dialectic is a method for disabusing oneself of false beliefs and for ‘giving birth’ to the platonic forms. In ancient Greece the word ‘Idea’ or ‘Form’ actually meant ‘to behold’ or ‘to experience’. Plato’s Republic is an analogical exercise in reaching these direct experiences (the Idea of the Good is in fact an experience of the Divine Luminosity); but how many people know the method of analogy, let alone take the time to actual reflect on that analogy?

Author: AlanChapman

I think this brings up the bigger question of whether or not this method actually leads to enlightenment, or just the formless realms. From my experience of self enquiry and centred prayer I'm inclined to believe that this process leads to genuine insight, and as such I find the distinction between samatha and insight not so clear with these methods.

However, if this practice does only lead to strong samatha, I would certainly say it was a waste of time considering this method is supposed to lead to enlightenment.

Author: AlanChapman

Sorry - that last post is a reply to Florian!

Well, the element of inquiry, "great doubt", is there. But I have no personal experience with the method, and no great attainments of insight to show for either, so it's fairly academic from my perspective.

Cheers,
Florian

Hi Florian,

Please understand, I said it was "a complete waste of time" because I was talking strictly in the context of hua-tou meditation within the Chan tradition. I thought that was clear. I did not mean to say anything at all about the views or understandings of other traditions. Please accept my apology if I unintendedly slighted anyone.

In terms of hua-tou practice where the desired result is a break through to see your Buddha nature/true nature/whatever you want to call it, enjoying/hanging out in a samadhi state is a waste of time, though it does show a stable and concentrated mind..

Perhaps I stated it too strongly in saying it was "a complete waste of time" because from that encounter I became sure that in terms of hua-tou practice, this kind of taking pleasure in and hanging out in samadhi
does not lead to seeing your nature, at least not in the Chan tradition.

I think we should be a bit careful in trying to match terminology and goals/results if you will,
from across different traditions. Robert Sharf's well known paper, "The Rhetoric of Religious Experience" discusses how even within the Theravada tradition there is little agreement among different sects and teachers on what is and isn't samatha and vipassana and how there is much criticism across lineages of their views and practice.
.

Hi Alan,

I am glad you found my reply "useful." Of course there are all kinds of particulars that come up in the practice. I gave a general outline.

It is important in hua-tou practice to understand that generating doubt and "cultivating"
that doubt so that it grows or deepens, if you will, is the key to the practice. So it is not just "holding on to the sensation of inquiry" that is the emphasis, but rather, to make the hua-tou change from a "dead word" to become a "live word." That is, the doubt becomes real and close to home and with cultivation everything else drops a way and the doubt deepens and takes on, so to speak, a life and energy of its own. Another point to be careful about, is becoming interested in/fascinated with a subtle sense of self, that can have an enchanting quality to it. But again, strictly in terms of hua -tou practice, is a distraction away from cultivating doubt, so is to be avoided and cut off quickly.

Yes, I am familiar with Ramanha Maharshi, though I have not looked at his "Self Enquiry" for many years. I believe Maharshi was considered the greatest saint in India in the last 500 years.

Sorry, but I don't feel comfortable with or knowledgeable enough with how to classify hua-tou practice in terms of jnana yoga.

I should probably give Grimes more time. I looked at his youtube video the night before leaving and was watching the clock as I watched him. Would you give the url again.

Thanks,

Stuart

Hi Stuart,

No offence taken! I'm not a native speaker, so if I came across short-spoken, I'm sorry for the confusion.

You're right about terminology, but I assume most members here have at least skimmed Daniel's book, because I see most people use his definitions (or assume they do, oh my!).

I completely see your point about wasting time - it's just that I thought your way of putting it amusing. There might have been a trace of pulling your leg in my reply.

Cheers,
Florian

I am trying to remember now Maharshi's method and if I recall, there was an intellectual discourse type of questioning focused on who in fact you really are. I don't remember now the whole process and whether one continues with this method by concentrating on particular aspects or not. If this is his method, then it is different from how one works with hua-tou. That aside, from what you say, it seems Maharshi's way is a jnana yoga.

I think each tradition claims their way leads to a specific insight and understanding of the world and reality. I feel comfortable with this idea, especially so as I think religious "experience" is not unmediated, though many, Chan included, claim they are.. Since I believe it is mediated by beliefs, philosophy, time, place, and so on, then I believe each tradition and perhaps each tradition at a given time has to more or less a degree, different experiences and understanding of reality. I am not saying one is necessarily superior to all others, just that we have to pick one or some and that mediates our insight and understanding.

Of course, the important thing is to find a way or ways compatible with who we are and to work with them.

Author: AlexWeith

As far as I know, Rama Maharishi's method is the traditional method of self enquiry called Atmavichar in Shankaracharya’s Advaita Vedanta tradition.

In order to find the true Self or Atma, one is first to find what it is not. This stage is similar to our Buddhist Vipassana where everything that comes and goes is acknowledged as impermanent, subject to pain and is therefore not the Atma. Throught this practice, the Jnana yogi discards his body, thoughts and emotions and is left with a form of pure awareness (Nisargadatta's I AM). The sense of self is however still present. But this awareness is not yet the Atma that is said to be beyond the three states of waking consciousness, sleep and dreamless sleep.

In order to reach this fourth state (Turyatita), the yogi must enquire “who I am?”. The purpose is to turn consciousness back to its own source, as the object of attention becomes the object of focus. Ultimately, the object merges into the subject and nothing is left but the true Self. The yogi is then to realize that his true self (Atman) is not a separate entity (as it is assumed in other Vedantic schools and discarded by the Buddha) but is not separated (advaita) from the absolute itself (Brahman).

As I see it, this method of self-inquiry is similar to the hua-t’ou method, especially questions like “who is dragging this corpse?”. The terminology and cultural background is however different. Not so much in reality since I strongly believe that Advaita Vedanta was influenced by Yogachara. Some Hindu scholars seem to share this opinion.

"To what extent do you [view] observing the three characteristics is fundamental to achieving fruition?"

With all the philosophical discussion, back and forth, that has gone on in this thread, the original question seems to have been lost in this discussion.

Within the context of the Pali canon and early Buddhism, which is the background from which I approach this question, I would have to agree with Daniel's assertion in his book:

"However, one day a senior teacher straightened me out and somehow convinced me to ground my mind in the specific sensations that make up the objects of meditation and examine impermanence. After some days of consistent and diligent practice using good technique, I began to directly penetrate the three illusions of permanence, satisfactoriness and self, and my world began to be broken down into the mind moments and vibrations that I always thought were just talk.

"By paying careful attention to bare phenomena arising and passing quick moment after quick moment, I progressively moved through the stages of insight and got my first taste of enlightenment.

"Thus, if you spin in content and don’t penetrate the three illusions, you are wasting your time and mine. This is just the way it is.

"If you develop strong concentration on the primary object and investigate the Three Characteristics consistently, this will almost certainly produce insight."

This is expressed quite clearly in the Anattalakkhana Sutta (SN 22.59) when the Buddha asks the monks:

"Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'?" — "No, venerable sir."

It's quite simple when you read and understand what the Buddha taught. No need to go wandering off on long discussions involving "content."

I assert that, while there are many different paths to insight, even those paths that don't call anything the The Three Characteristics, and don't emphasize any aspect that sounds like The Three Characteristics, and has no technique that focuses on The Three Characteristics, nevertheless, by focusing on reality, these aspects present, as they are universal characteristics, and thus, understood or not, conceptualized or not, focused on or not, I will still assert that it is by comprehending the Three Characteristics that Fruitions arise, as the only entrances are through the Three Doors (Really Six Doors given the sub-varieties related to which two of the three are presenting), and so, even if other traditions or practitioners or whatever, attain to the ultimate, they did it by noticing this even if that was not their intention, and I will, for better or for worse, assert that on this particular front Buddhism excels in what I will call descriptive spiritual or meditative anatomy in a way that no other tradition does, and I have looked a the maps of a lot of traditions.

It is not coincidence that most actually do have aspects that parallel at least some of the Three Characteristics, given that they are universal and lead to the entrances to Fruition, even if they don't call them that, and functionally serve the same pointing role.

Distinguishing these can be difficult until one has had a bunch of Fruitions. For instance, the mirror-like nature of mind and the emptiness or no-self door initially seem to have nothing to do with each other from the point of view of theory, but in practice the Emptiness/No-Self Door often presents in a way that is very much mirror-like. Seeing one's original face falls into the exact same camp, as to many other examples.

Author: telecaster

This is so concise and clear and devoid of anything extra or not useful.

Author: AlexWeith

I full agree Daniel. It is mainly a matter of terminology. I am back from China and had the opportunity to practice with a Zen group in Beijing. Interestingly, they mainly practice Vipassana, following the four foundation of mindfulness strait from the Nikkaya Suttas. I talked about the importance of the three characteristics. The teacher agreed saying that his teacher had told him to be very careful about false Zen teachers who do not insist on this essential point of Zen practice.