Chan Thought Q&A: Insights from the Vimalakīrti Sūtra
by Venerable Jiejing (Renkūan) Translated By Yinhong
Chan Buddhism is distinguished above all by its principle of “not relying on words and letters, and transmitting outside the teachings.” “Not relying on words” means not clinging to words; “transmitting outside the teachings” means not being attached to doctrinal forms. Not clinging to words does not mean abandoning words, and not being attached to teachings does not mean dispensing with doctrine. To leave behind words and teachings is Chan; to employ words and teachings is also Chan. Thus, in its essence, Chan has neither a fixed doctrine nor a scripture on which it depends, yet it encompasses all scriptures and all words.
For the sake of practical study, this collection of Chan‑thought questions and answers has been compiled.
The Doctrinal Basis of Chan
1. Chan Thought Q&A — Insights from the Vimalakīrti Sūtra
Both Chan Buddhism and the Sanlun (Three Treatises) School base their teaching of “establishing all dharmas from the foundation of non‑abiding” on the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, Chapter 7, “Observing Sentient Beings,” particularly the dialogue between Mañjuśrī and Vimalakīrti.
Mañjuśrī asked, “If a bodhisattva wishes to rely on the Buddha’s virtuous qualities, where should such a practitioner abide?”
Vimalakīrti replied, “A bodhisattva who seeks to rely on the Buddha’s virtuous qualities should abide in the liberation of all sentient beings.”
Mañjuśrī asked, “To liberate sentient beings, what must be eliminated?”
Vimalakīrti replied, “To liberate sentient beings, one must eliminate afflictions.”
Mañjuśrī asked, “To eliminate afflictions, what should one cultivate?”
Vimalakīrti replied, “One should cultivate right mindfulness.”
Mañjuśrī asked, “How should right mindfulness be cultivated?”
Vimalakīrti replied, “By realizing non‑arising and non‑ceasing.”
Mañjuśrī asked, “What is meant by non‑arising, and what is meant by non‑ceasing?”
Vimalakīrti replied, “Unwholesome dharmas do not arise, and wholesome dharmas do not cease.”
Mañjuśrī asked, “What is the root of wholesome and unwholesome dharmas?”
Vimalakīrti replied, “The body is their root.”
Mañjuśrī asked, “What is the root of the body?”
Vimalakīrti replied, “Craving and attachment are its root.”
Mañjuśrī asked, “What is the root of craving and attachment?”
Vimalakīrti replied, “Delusion and conceptual discrimination are their root.”
Mañjuśrī asked, “What is the root of delusion and discrimination?”
Vimalakīrti replied, “Inverted thinking is their root.”
Mañjuśrī asked, “What is the root of inverted thinking?”
Vimalakīrti replied, “Non‑abiding is its root.”
Mañjuśrī asked, “What is the root of non‑abiding?”
Vimalakīrti replied, “Non‑abiding has no root. Mañjuśrī, it is from the foundation of non‑abiding that all dharmas are established.”
2. Understanding “Non‑Abiding”
“Non‑abiding” (無住) means not dwelling anywhere and not clinging to anything. It is identical to suchness (真如)—the state before delusion arises, the state Chan Buddhism calls “your original face before your parents were born,” referring to the mind before ignorance and craving arise.
Because suchness has no place of reliance, it is called “non‑abiding.”
Since suchness is non‑abiding, it cannot have a root. If it had a root, it would imply a place of dwelling. Only that which is rootless can serve as the basis of all things. Thus:
“From the non‑abiding nature of suchness, all dharmas are established.”
3. Two Types of Non‑Abiding
There are two forms of non‑abiding:
- Non‑abiding in suchness
True, authentic, and non‑delusive—the basis of all pure and wholesome dharmas. - Non‑abiding in ignorance
Illusory and unreal, false and delusive—the source of all defiled and unwholesome dharmas.
Non‑abiding in suchness corresponds to dharma‑nature (法性), the true and non‑delusive nature that pervades all space without dwelling anywhere. As the Diamond Sūtra states:
“One should not give rise to a mind that dwells in forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile objects, or dharmas; one should give rise to a mind that abides nowhere.”
A mind arising from the non‑abiding nature of suchness is the true mind.
Thus:
Suchness, in its non‑abiding nature, serves as the foundation for all wholesome dharmas.
4. Names of Suchness Across Buddhist Traditions
The Sixth Patriarch’s phrase “not a single thing” is precisely Chan, and Chan is suchness. It is also called Buddha‑nature, dharma‑nature, ultimate reality, true aspect, dharma‑realm, Tathāgatagarbha, dharma‑body, mind‑nature, thusness, suchness‑as‑it‑is, the intrinsically pure mind, the one mind, and non‑abiding.
Master Jizang of the Sanlun School explains in Profound Meaning of the Mahāyāna (Volume 3) that the various scriptures use different names for the same Buddha‑nature. The Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra states that Buddha‑nature has many names: dharma‑nature, nirvāṇa, prajñā, the One Vehicle, the Śūraṅgama Samādhi, and the Lion’s Roar Samādhi.
Thus, what is called Buddha‑nature in one scripture is called the dharma‑realm in another, the Tathāgatagarbha in another, the intrinsically pure mind in another, the eighth consciousness in another, and so on. All are simply different names for the same Buddha‑nature.
The Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra states:
“All sentient beings share the same true nature, but it is obscured by adventitious defilements.”
To guide non‑Buddhists, the Buddha sometimes used the term “Self” to refer to Buddha‑nature. As the Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra says:
“The term ‘Self’ refers to the meaning of the Tathāgatagarbha. All sentient beings possess Buddha‑nature.”
5. The Sixth Patriarch’s Verse of Awakening and the Practical Application of Suchness
From the verse of awakening of the Sixth Patriarch Huineng, it is clear that his words arise from a complete and sudden realization of his own mind‑nature. He negates Bodhi and denies the bright mirror—not as nihilism, but as a negation taken to its utmost, which contains the deepest affirmation. Thus later generations expanded upon his phrase “not a single thing,” saying: “Within the realm of not a single thing lies an inexhaustible treasury—there are flowers, there is the moon, there are pavilions and terraces.” This expresses precisely the doctrinal basis of the Vimalakīrti Sūtra: “From the non‑abiding nature, all dharmas are established.”
The Sixth Patriarch’s practical application of suchness concerns the Dharma‑gate of actual Chan practice. As the Platform Sūtra, Chapter on Questions and Doubts, states:
“My Dharma‑gate, from ancient times, first establishes no‑thought as the principle, formlessness as the essence, and non‑abiding as the foundation.
Formlessness means to be free from appearances while in the midst of appearances.
No‑thought means to be free from thought while in the midst of thought.
Non‑abiding means that, with respect to all dharmas, the mind does not dwell in any thought.”
1. “Free from appearances while in the midst of appearances”
This refers to eliminating self‑attachment and dharma‑attachment. The practitioner contemplates the emptiness of self internally and the emptiness of dharmas externally. When one realizes both self‑emptiness and dharma‑emptiness, one attains the wisdom of emptiness. Only with this wisdom can one truly accomplish “free from appearances while in the midst of appearances.” As the Diamond Sūtra says: “One who is free from all appearances is called a Buddha.”
To be free from all appearances is to have transformed the seventh consciousness (manas) into the Wisdom of Equality.
In summary, when a practitioner is constantly free from all appearances, one grasps the true nature of all dharmas. This is the meaning of “formlessness as the essence.”
The true nature of all dharmas is equal, without duality or distinction. As the Platform Sūtra, Chapter on Encounters, states:
“In a single instant there is no appearance of arising;
in a single instant there is no appearance of ceasing;
there is no arising or ceasing that can be extinguished.
Thus quiescence appears before you, and when it appears,
there is no measure of its appearance.”
This describes the equality and non‑duality of all dharmas.
2. “Free from thought while in the midst of thought”
This means that when encountering any of the six sensory objects, the mind does not cling. To perceive is thought; to be free from clinging is no‑thought. Thus it is called “free from thought while in the midst of thought.” As the Prajñā Chapter states: “If one sees all dharmas without the mind becoming defiled or attached, this is no‑thought.”
3. “Non‑abiding”
Here, “abiding” means attachment. In all Dharma‑gates, the essential point is to abandon attachment, for attachment is the root of saṃsāra, and non‑attachment is the root of practice. Thus it is said: “Non‑abiding is the foundation.”
The Sixth Patriarch awakened upon hearing the Diamond Sūtra: “Do not give rise to a mind that dwells in forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile objects, or dharmas; give rise to a mind that abides nowhere.”
This “mind that abides nowhere” is the fundamental aim of practice.
Some, upon hearing the Buddha praise Amitābha’s Pure Land, become attached to its splendor; upon hearing of the defilements of this world, they develop aversion. They do not understand that these teachings are skillful means. Such practice is entirely mistaken, for they are constantly turned by conditions. They do not realize that the Pure Land must be purified within one’s own mind, and that Amitābha is found within one’s own self‑nature. As the Sixth Patriarch said:
“Foolish people do not understand their own self‑nature and do not recognize the Pure Land within their own body. They long for the East or the West…
If one sees one’s nature in every thought and always practices straightforwardly, then in the space of a finger‑snap one beholds Amitābha.”
Regarding “non‑abiding,” the Platform Sūtra also states:
“Non‑abiding is the original nature of people.
When encountering good or evil, beauty or ugliness,
or even hostility and affection, harsh words or deceit,
regard them all as empty.
Do not think of retaliation;
in every thought, do not dwell on past conditions.”
These points are only a brief explanation of the non‑abiding nature of suchness. From this, one can see the doctrinal convergence between the Sanlun School and Chan Buddhism. Through this question and answer, it becomes easier to grasp both the Sanlun School’s Middle‑Way teaching on Buddha‑nature and Chan Buddhism’s teaching on Buddha‑nature, as well as the practical aim of practice: “non‑abiding as the foundation.”
Q2. What does the Vimalakīrti Sūtra mean by “Without eliminating afflictions, one enters nirvāṇa—this is serene abiding”? How does this relate to the Sixth Patriarch’s teaching on no‑thought?
A: In the Disciples chapter of the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, the text states: “Without eliminating afflictions, one enters nirvāṇa—this is serene abiding.”（不斷煩惱而入涅槃，是為宴坐） Afflictions are the cause of saṃsāra, while nirvāṇa is realized through the path of practice. Śrāvakas believe that afflictions possess a real essence that must be eliminated, and that nirvāṇa possesses a real essence that must be attained. Bodhisattvas, however, realize that the nature of afflictions is empty. Since afflictions are empty in essence, they are nirvāṇa itself, and there is no need to seek nirvāṇa apart from afflictions. Thus the bodhisattva “enters nirvāṇa without eliminating afflictions.” This teaching, together with the statement in the Bodhisattva Chapter—“When you lift or place your foot, you should know that every step arises from the place of awakening”—forms the doctrinal foundation of the sudden teaching that “everything is inherently complete.” Only when everything is inherently complete can sudden awakening be possible, and only then can the Dharma be fully integrated into daily conduct. Only when one realizes that the Buddha‑nature of the foolish and the wise is non‑dual, and that through the “Right Contemplation of Non‑attainment” afflictions are seen as identical to bodhi, will Prajñā wisdom manifest, allowing one to “behold the realm of all Buddhas.”
The Sixth Patriarch Huineng explains this principle in the Platform Sūtra, Prajñā Chapter, stating that the Buddha‑nature of the foolish and the wise is originally without difference; it is only due to delusion and enlightenment that there is foolishness or wisdom. “When the previous thought is deluded, one is an ordinary person; when the subsequent thought is awakened, one is a Buddha. When the previous thought clings to conditions, it is affliction; when the subsequent thought is free from conditions, it is bodhi.” He further teaches that those who awaken to this Dharma possess no‑thought, no‑recollection, and no‑attachment, without giving rise to deceit or delusion. Functioning from their own True Suchness nature, they observe all things with Prajñā wisdom, neither grasping nor rejecting any dharma; this is perceiving one’s nature and realizing the Buddha Way. He explains that no‑thought means seeing all dharmas without the mind becoming stained or attached. Its function pervades all places while clinging to none. Moving through the six sensory fields without becoming stained or mixed by them, allowing the six consciousnesses to pass through the six gates without defilement or attachment, moving freely and functioning with complete ease—this is prajñā‑samādhi, the liberation of true freedom, and the practice of no‑thought. If one suppresses all thinking so that thoughts are entirely extinguished, this becomes bondage to the Dharma—an extreme view. Those who realize the Dharma of no‑thought reach the Buddha‑stage. The Sixth Patriarch’s emphasis on no‑thought accords with the Prajñā Sūtras, the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, and the Mahāprajñāpāramitā‑śāstra, which integrate the doctrine of śūnyatā‑prajñā into daily conduct.
Affliction refers to mental agitation and distress arising from the reflexive activity of an ignorant, ungrounded will driven by craving. As explained in Question 1, humans possess a body; the body is rooted in craving; craving is rooted in illusory discrimination; and illusory discrimination is rooted in inverted thinking. Thus afflictions arise from the blind impulses of “illusory discrimination and inverted imagination.” If afflictions were fixed and unchangeable, liberation would be impossible. Yet deep within each person lies the true and reasonable will of “non‑abiding suchness.” When this is discovered and activated, it is called bodhi. This is the meaning of “Without eliminating afflictions, one enters nirvāṇa—this is serene abiding.”（不斷煩惱而入涅槃，是為宴坐） and corresponds to the sudden teaching: “A thought clinging to conditions is affliction; a thought free from conditions is bodhi.” This is also an exposition of the sudden teaching that “when the previous thought clings to conditions, it is affliction; when the subsequent thought is free from conditions, it is bodhi”（前念著境即煩惱，後念離境即菩提）. What is called the arising and functioning of the true and reasonable will（真實合理的意志起用） is precisely this moment when suchness awakens and begins to function. The Sixth Patriarch calls this activation of true suchness “the functioning of suchness,” identical to the functioning of the Buddha.
A modern example illustrates this transformation. A story once reported in the World Journal tells of an American man who loved eating lamb. One day, while waiting for his meal, he saw a sheep outside peacefully eating grass. Observing it closely, he reflected: “This gentle creature eats grass simply to live. Why should humans take its life to sustain their own?” In that moment, he “used his inherent nature of suchness and contemplated with wisdom,” as the Sixth Patriarch taught. He left the restaurant without eating. The next day, as the General Manager of his factory, he announced that no employee would be allowed to bring meat to work. In the Western context—where “sheep were created by God for humans to eat”—this was highly unusual. Yet by relying on his true suchness, he attained a state “Clinging to neither false nor true, one abides in purity without remainder,” a liberation not bound by God or any external authority—a life of Chan freedom.
The Sixth Patriarch’s emphasis on no‑thought is grounded in the Vimalakīrti Sūtra. When Mañjuśrī asked Vimalakīrti, “What should one practice to eliminate afflictions?” he replied, “One should practice right mindfulness.” This “right mindfulness” (samyak‑smṛti) is precisely no‑thought (anabhisaṃskāra), meaning no‑mind (wu‑xin). No‑mind is cultivated in relation to the six sensory objects—form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and dharmas—by remaining without attachment. Thus no‑thought means the absence of erroneous or defiled mental activity and implies transforming the seventh consciousness (manas‑vijñāna) into the Wisdom of Equality (samatā‑jñāna).
Apart from regulating the body and the breath, the most essential aspect of seated meditation is regulating the mind. The methods of mind‑regulation can be divided into the Caodong and Linji schools, which differ in their approaches: Caodong regulates the mind in seated meditation by working on the seventh consciousness (manas‑vijñāna) to clarify the defiled mind, whereas Linji regulates the mind by working on the eighth consciousness (ālaya‑vijñāna) to bring forth the realization of true suchness (tathatā). This form of mind‑regulation, oriented toward directly seeing one’s nature, chiefly involves contemplating the word “Wu” gong’an, such as the question, “Does a dog have Buddha‑nature?”
There is an essential method for regulating the mind in seated meditation which states: “Contemplate that which is beyond contemplation. How does one contemplate what is beyond contemplation? ‘Non‑contemplation’ itself is the essential method of seated meditation.” “Contemplation” is an abbreviation of “deliberating and measuring,” a form of mental activity associated with the seventh consciousness (manas‑vijñāna), an active and discriminative mind; “non‑contemplation” refers to the absence of such mental activity. To incline toward the active, discriminative mind is already a sickness; yet to incline toward the absence of mind is likewise a sickness. Now, without falling into the “contemplating mind” of deliberate thought, and without sinking into the “non‑contemplating mind” of blankness, one transcends both distraction and dullness in their very ground. This is what is meant by “contemplating the non‑contemplation.” If one asks, “How does one contemplate what is non‑contemplation?”—it is precisely this that is meant by “non‑contemplation is the essential method of seated meditation.”
The “non‑” in “non‑contemplation” is not a negation. In seated meditation it refers to right mindfulness: a state of no‑mind and no‑thought that transcends all dualities such as existence and non‑existence, male and female, wrong and right. It is free from contrived mental fabrication, yet it is not a condition of “thinking of nothing at all.” This right mindfulness in meditation is precisely right contemplation, fully in accord with the original meaning of dhyāna as “reflective cultivation.” Dhyāna carries the sense of introspection. As long as the mind still harbors defiled and dualistic notions—affliction and bodhi, birth and death, and nirvāṇa, ordinary and sage, delusion and enlightenment, elimination and realization—this is the contaminated activity of discriminative thought. What the Sixth Patriarch emphasizes as the practice of no‑thought is to transcend delusion and enlightenment, to surpass ordinary and sage, so that every thought is upright and every moment is free from defiled mental activity.
A monk once said:
“Wolun possesses a clever method,
Capable of severing all thoughts.
Facing circumstances, the mind does not rise,
And Bodhi grows day by day.”
In response, the Sixth Patriarch said: “Huineng has no method. He does not sever all thoughts. Facing circumstances, the mind arises again and again—how, then, can bodhi grow?” Using the words of Master Jizang of the Sanlun School, that monk’s mental state is like “a looping worm—abandoning one to grasp another”: abandoning birth and death to seek nirvāṇa, and eliminating afflictions in order to realize bodhi. Therefore the Sixth Patriarch taught: “Neither grasping nor rejecting any dharma—this is seeing one’s nature and attaining the Buddha Way.”
In the Linji tradition, gong’an practice and seated meditation are expedient means to realize Buddhahood. One first regulates the body, then transcends dualistic views to experience ultimate emptiness, activating the functioning of true suchness (tathatā). From among the seventeen hundred traditional Chan gong’an, one selects a single case to work with—such as Zhaozhou’s “Wu”—to regulate the mind and realize one’s nature.
For example, consider Zhaozhou’s gong’an of the dog and Buddha‑nature. A monk asked, “Does a dog have Buddha‑nature or not?” The master replied, “No.” The monk said, “All sentient beings, down to wriggling creatures, are said to have Buddha‑nature. Why, then, does a dog not have it?” The master replied, “Because it has karmic consciousness.” On another occasion, a monk asked, “Does a dog have Buddha‑nature or not?” The master replied, “Yes.” The monk said, “If it has Buddha‑nature, why does it enter this skin‑bag?” The master replied, “Knowing, it still deliberately commits the offense.”
Zhaozhou’s method of answering—at one time saying “No,” at another saying “Yes”—may seem contradictory from a theoretical standpoint. Yet from Zhaozhou’s perspective, although the same question receives different answers, there is no inconsistency.
This is because Chan masters respond to questions in accordance with the capacities of sentient beings, guiding students by adapting to the standpoint of the questioner. The Chan method of instruction is not meant to make the questioner understand; rather, it is meant to arouse doubt. Thus, in answering why the dog is said to have no Buddha-nature, the emphasis is placed on the fact that it has “karmic consciousness.” Although karmic consciousness appears to be the issue, what actually becomes the focal point is the answer “No.”
This “No” is Zhaozhou’s distinctive “No”; it is the very life of Chan. Those who practice Chan must first pass through this gate of “No,” for it is the first step in revealing Buddha-nature.
As stated in Case One of The Gateless Gate:
A monk asked Master Zhaozhou, “Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?”
Zhaozhou said, “No.”
Wumen said: To study Chan, one must pass through the barrier of the patriarchs; to attain subtle awakening, one must exhaust the pathways of the mind. If the patriarchs’ barrier is not passed and the pathways of the mind are not cut off, one remains like a spirit clinging to grass and trees.
So what is the patriarchs’ barrier? It is simply this one word, “No.” This is the single barrier of the Chan school, and thus it is called “The Gateless Gate of Chan.” …
Raise a great mass of doubt throughout your whole body, and investigate this word “No.” Day and night, keep it before you. Do not understand it as nihilistic emptiness, nor as a matter of being or non-being. …
Exert your entire strength on this single word “No.” If you do not let up, it is like a dharma-lamp: once lit, it ignites at once.
Verse:
The dog’s Buddha-nature—fully set forth as the correct command!
The moment you fall into being or non-being,
you lose your body and your life.
The so-called “pathways of the mind” refer to afflictions. According to Cheng Weishi Lun (Treatise on the Establishment of Consciousness-Only), the root of these mental pathways lies in the eighth consciousness, the ālaya-vijñāna, translated as the “storehouse consciousness.” The seeds of both wholesome and unwholesome states are stored within it.
However, even wholesome seeds are only called “good” in contrast to unwholesome ones; such goodness cannot yet be called the pure Buddha-nature.
Chan practice aims to exhaust these fundamental mental pathways of good and evil, and then to transcend the storehouse consciousness itself, leaping into the perfectly complete suchness of the mind—where “originally there is not a single thing.”
In this way, the single word “No” acts like a blade that shatters all previous distorted knowing and delusive perception. From that point on, the activity of the pure suchness-mind begins.
Our habitual way of thinking has long been to observe things through opposition and comparison. While this method has its practical uses, it is not the ultimate way of seeing.
In truth, all things exist independently, without inherent opposition; all are beyond duality. Thus, whether we speak of birth or death
Q3: To whom did Vimalakīrti speak the passage that later became the doctrinal basis for the Chan teaching of “not presenting any single Dharma to others”? What did the Sanlun masters say about it?
A: In the “Disciples” chapter of the Vimalakīrti Sūtra, Vimalakīrti addressed the Venerable Mahāmaudgalyāyana, saying:
“Mahāmaudgalyāyana, the dharma characteristics are thus—how could they be spoken of? One who expounds the Dharma does not truly speak or point to anything; one who hears the Dharma does not truly hear or attain anything.”
In response, both Sengzhao, regarded as the eighth patriarch in the Sanlun tradition, and Master Jizang explained this in the same spirit: “Speaking throughout the day, yet never speaking; hearing throughout the day, yet never hearing.” Only through realizing the state of “no hearing and no attainment” can one truly hear and truly realize the Buddha’s original intent in teaching the Dharma.
Here, the term “dharma characteristics” in the phrase “the dharma characteristics are thus” refers to dharma-nature. The saying “Whether there are Buddhas or not, dharma-nature abides always” means that the characteristics of all dharmas have been thus from beginningless time. Even if a thousand Buddhas were to appear in the world, it would not be possible to add or remove a single word. This is the truth of things as they are; it does not reside in the scriptures alone. For this reason, the Chan patriarchs spoke of “not presenting any single Dharma to others,” and this is also what is meant by “not relying on words and letters, a special transmission outside the teachings.”
The Blue Cliff Record also preserves a dialogue between Subhūti and Śakra, which shows that the Dharma is not confined to scripture. Subhūti was sitting in meditation and had entered samādhi of emptiness. When the devas scattered flowers and offered praise, Subhūti asked who was praising. Śakra replied that he revered the Venerable One for skillfully expounding the Perfection of Wisdom. Subhūti answered that he had never spoken a single word of Prajñā. Śakra then said, “Your non-speaking and my non-hearing—this is true Prajñā.”
In Mahāyāna Buddhism, the truth of emptiness is most fully expounded in the Prajñāpāramitā sūtras. Yet the emptiness spoken of in the sūtras is still expressed through language and provisional designation; it is not emptiness itself. Likewise, the emptiness that is heard through ordinary language is not the ultimate truth of emptiness. That is why it is said that the emptiness of ultimate truth cannot be spoken. When speech is used, one is still within the realm of concepts and names. Only when one goes beyond all names and concepts, and enters samādhi of emptiness, does emptiness appear as it truly is.
For this reason, Śakra praised Subhūti’s silent meditation, saying, “Non-speaking and non-hearing are true Prajñā.” This is also the meaning of the Diamond Sūtra’s statement: “The Buddha speaks of Prajñāpāramitā; it is not Prajñāpāramitā, therefore it is called Prajñāpāramitā.” What is conveyed in words is not true Prajñā, but only signs and concepts.
A similar story appears in Chan literature, in the Record of Pointing to the Moon (Zhiyue lu). Fu Dashi, also known as Shanhui Bodhisattva, was born in 497 CE and was a distinguished early Chan master. On one occasion, Emperor Wu of Liang invited him to expound the Diamond Sūtra. After ascending the seat, he simply struck the lectern once and stepped down, leaving the emperor puzzled. Shanhui then asked the emperor, “Do you understand?” The emperor replied, “I do not understand at all.” Shanhui then said, “I have already finished expounding the entire sūtra.” This story illustrates the Chan way of direct pointing beyond words.
The Diamond Sūtra describes the realm realized through awakening to ultimate emptiness. This true emptiness is free from discriminating thought, and beyond the marks of words, language, and mental construction. It is precisely true Prajñā, and it is what Vimalakīrti meant by “the dharma nature is thus.” This is the central truth of Chan, and it is the basis for the patriarchs’ teaching of “not presenting any single Dharma to others.” It also helps explain the Chan maxim, “not relying on words and letters, a special transmission outside the teachings.”
At the same time, “not relying on words” does not mean “not using words.” Some within the Chan community mistakenly equate “not relying on words” with “not using words,” and as a result neglect the study of the sutras and even tend to disparage those who teach the Dharma. There are also those who, in the meditation hall, spend their whole day contemplating the phrase, “What is my original face before my parents were born?” When asked what “before my parents were born” means, they reply, “Do you even need to ask? It obviously means the parents of this very life.” Such blind practitioners, who rely neither on the sutras nor on the teachings, not only mislead themselves but also mislead others.
On the other hand, those who immerse themselves only in the study of scriptural terms and names are, from Bodhidharma’s point of view, also pitiful. When Bodhidharma first came to China, it was precisely the age of textual study and commentary, and for this very reason he alone raised the banner of “not relying on words and letters, a special transmission outside the teachings.”
Words are merely signs, not truth itself. Even when a great many words are used to express the truth, they are only a means of conveying meaning, not the truth itself. The “emptiness” spoken of in the scriptures is not the “emptiness of ultimate truth.” Such true emptiness and prajñā cannot be handed down through words or language. For this reason, the Chan patriarchs’ teaching of “not presenting any single Dharma to others” points precisely to this, and it is also an explanation of “a special transmission outside the teachings.” Thus, the ancients explained “a special transmission outside the teachings” as “transmission that is a matter of mutual accord.”
Yesterday, I taught Wang Yuhai how to cut sod in the grass yard. On the surface, it seemed that I was transmitting the hoeing method to him, teaching him what the “mouth of the hoe” is, where the first stroke should begin, what it means to turn the sod, when the sod is truly separated from the ground, how to listen for the roots of the grass, and where to place the sod after cutting. Even to remove a small piece of sod involves so many written signs. Although this was called the “transmission of the hoeing method,” in reality such a transmission can only be called a “transmission without transmission.” Aside from a direct accord of mind with mind, by which I verified whether his hoeing method was correct, there was “no further method to hand over.” If you wish to know what the hoeing method is like, you may ask Hailian at the villa.
Written on October 28, 2003, at Hailian Leisure Villa.