On Having Views, Not Having Views, and
Transcending Views
The issue is whether one
dwells on one’s view and be caught up in it – or be awakened from the sleep. Having a insight here should be tied to Daiyu Genzen (Jp.)
- truth is apparent in suchness (as-it-
- Kio Suzaki
(June, ’03)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My
View on Having Views/Not Having Views/Transcending Views
When dwelling on views
as "supreme,"
a person makes them
the utmost thing
in the world,
&, from that, calls
all others inferior
and so he's not free
from disputes.
When he sees his advantage
in what's seen, heard, sensed,
or in precepts & practices,
seizing it there
he sees all else
as inferior.
That, too, say the skilled,
is a binding knot: that
in dependence on which
you regard another
as inferior.
So a monk shouldn't be dependent
on what's seen, heard, or sensed, or on precepts & practices; nor should he conjure a view in the
world in connection with knowledge or precepts & practices;
((I
view that the Buddha is talking about “the state” to be in as much as possible
for the insight to arise or simply to be calm and liberated))
shouldn't take himself
to be "equal";
shouldn't think himself
inferior or superlative.
Abandoning what he had
embraced,
abandoning self,[1]
not clinging, he doesn't make
himself dependent even in connection with knowledge; doesn't follow a faction
among those who are split; doesn't fall back on any view whatsoever.
One
who isn't inclined toward either side -- becoming or
not-, here or beyond -- who has no entrenchment when
considering what's grasped among doctrines, hasn't the least preconceived
perception with regard to what's seen, heard, or sensed. By whom, with what, should he be pigeonholed here
in the world?
-- this brahman
who hasn't adopted views.
They
don't conjure, don't yearn, don't adhere even to doctrines.
((It
appears that the point focused here is on Samadhi-prajna; shila
(right conduct) may be seen as a result of insight (and/or condition for
insight), depending on the situation. ))
A brahman not led
by precepts or practices, gone to the beyond -- Such --
doesn't fall back.
From: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp4-05.html (Suttanipata IV-5)
======
If you don't want
this gem of a woman, coveted
by many kings,
then for what sort of viewpoint,
precept, practice, life,
attainment of [further] becoming
do you argue?
The Buddha:
'I argue for this'
doesn't occur to one
when considering what's grasped
among doctrines.
Looking for what is ungrasped
with regard to views,
and detecting inner peace,
I saw.
Magandiya:
Sage, you speak without grasping at any
preconceived judgments.
This 'inner peace': what does it mean? How is it, by an enlightened
person, proclaimed?
The Buddha:
He doesn't speak of purity in connection with view,
learning, knowledge, precept or practice.
Nor is it found by a person through lack of view, of learning, of
knowledge, of precept or practice.[1]
Letting these go, without grasping, at peace, independent, one wouldn't long
for becoming.
Magandiya:
If he doesn't speak of purity
in connection with view,
learning,
knowledge,
precept or practice.
and it isn't found by a person
through lack of view,
of learning,
of knowledge,
of precept or practice,
it seems to me that this teaching's
confused,
for some assume a purity
in terms of
-- by means of --
a view.
The Buddha:
Asking questions dependent on view, you're confused by
what you have grasped. And so you don't glimpse even the slightest
notion [of what I am saying]. That's why
you think it's confused. ((This is like
referring to a guru bind, i.e., if you think you know/gain/achieve it, you are
lost. So, let go. Don’t be confined, and carry a burden to
prove you are right for others or for yourself.
The proof is to be “seen” at every moment.))
Whoever
construes 'equal,' 'superior,' or 'inferior,' by that he'd dispute;
whereas to one unaffected by these three, 'equal,' 'superior,' do not occur.
((Therefore, no duality, no bind, no
position – as in ‘No position of true man’ (Rinzai)))
Of what would the brahman
say 'true'
or 'false,'
disputing with whom:
he in whom 'equal,' 'unequal' are not.
Having abandoned home,
living free from society,
the sage
in villages
creates no intimacies.
Rid of sensual passions, free
from yearning,
he wouldn't engage with people
in quarrelsome debate.[2]
Those
things aloof from which he should go about in the world: the great one wouldn't
take them up & argue for them.
As the prickly lotus
is unsmeared by water & mud,
so the sage,
an exponent of peace,
without greed,
is unsmeared by sensuality &
the world.
An attainer-of-wisdom
isn't measure made proud[3] by views or by what is thought, for he isn't
affected by them. He wouldn't be led by
action,[4] learning; doesn't reach a conclusion in any
entrenchments.
For
one dispassionate toward perception there are no ties;
for one released by discernment, no delusions.
Those who grasp at perceptions & views go about butting their heads
in the world.
from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp4-09.html
"Seeing how,
behaving how,
is one said to be
at peace?
Gotama, tell me about
-- when asked about --
the ultimate person."
The Buddha:
"Free from craving
before the break-up
[of the body],
independent
of before
& the end,[1]
not classified in between,[2]
no yearning is his.
Un- angered,
un- startled,
un- boastful,
un- anxious,
giving counsel unruffled,
he is a sage,
his speech
under control.
Free
from attachment with regard to the future, not sorrowing
over the past, he sees seclusion in the midst of sensory contacts.[3]
He can't be led in terms of views.[4]
Withdrawn, un-deceitful, not stingy, not
miserly, not insolent, in-offensive, he doesn't engage in divisive speech.
Not intoxicated with enticements, nor given
to pride, he's gentle, quick-witted, beyond conviction & dispassion.[5]
Not in hopes of material gain does he take on
the training; when without material gain he isn't upset.
Unobstructed by craving, he doesn't through
craving[6] hunger for flavors.
Equanimous
-- always -- mindful, he doesn't conceive hhimself as
equal, superior, inferior, in the world.
No swellings of pride are his.
Whose
dependencies don't exist when, on knowing the Dhamma,
he's in-
dependent; in whom no craving is found for becoming or not-: he is said
to be at peace, un-intent on sensual pleasures, with nothing at all to tie him
down: one who's crossed over attachment.
He has no children
cattle,
fields,
land.
In him you can't pin down
what's embraced
or rejected,
what's self
or opposed to self.[7]
He has no yearning
for that which people run-of-the-mill
or priests & contemplatives
might blame --
which is why
he is unperturbed
with regard to their words.
His greed gone, not miserly, the sage doesn't
speak of himself
as among those who are higher, equal, or lower.
He,
conjuring-free,
doesn't submit
to conjuring,
to the cycling of time.[8]
For whom
nothing in the world
is his own,
who doesn't grieve
over what is not,
who doesn't enter into
doctrines
phenomena:[9]
he is said
to be
at peace."
((If
I compare these statements to detachment to, for example, have but not caught
up in having it, (i.e., a state of conscious of unconscious, or the logic of A
is not A but A, prajna immediate denial logic,) I see it still workable to not
to become a monk by literally throwing everything, thoughts, etc. away – so to
speak. (this is Mahayana’s stance, e.g., vimalakirti)
It may be however possible that at the time of the Budhha’s
teaching, everything was focused on getting to “zero” by virtually having to
live in this state ( just ended up in such a form of basic bare minimum living).
*
Figurative Zen expression: Empty handed I go, and behold the spade is in my
hands (p.58). Or Daisetz Suzuki says,
“In logic there is a trace of effort and pain: logic is self-conscious. – p.64,
Intro. To Zen Buddhism))
From: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp4-10.html
"From where have there
arisen
quarrels, disputes,
lamentation, sorrows, along with selfishness,
conceit & pride, along with divisiveness?
From where have they arisen?
Please tell me." ….
"Where is the cause
of things dear in the world,
along with the greeds
that go about in the world?
And where is the cause
of the hopes & fulfillments
for the sake of a person's next life?"
"Desires are the cause
of things dear in the world,
along with the greeds that go about in the world.
And it too is the cause
of the hopes & fulfillments
for the sake of a person's next life."
"Now where is the cause
of desire in the world?
And from where have there arisen
decisions, anger, lies, & perplexity,
and all the qualities
described by the Contemplative?"
"What they call
'appealing' &
'unappealing'
in the world:
in dependence on that
desire arises.
Having seen becoming & not-
with regard to forms,
a person gives rise to decisions in the world;
anger, lies, & perplexity:
these qualities, too, when that pair exists.
A person perplexed
should train for the path of knowledge,
for it's in having known
that the Contemplative has spoken
of qualities/dhammas."[1]
"Where is the cause
of appealing & un-?
When what isn't
do they not exist?
And whatever is meant
by becoming & not- :
tell me,
Where is its cause?"
"Contact is the cause
of appealing & un-.
When contact isn't
they do not exist.
And whatever is meant
by becoming & not- :
this too is its cause."
"Now where is the cause
of contact in the world,
and from where have graspings,
possessions, arisen?
When what isn't
does mine-ness not
exist.
When what has disappeared
do contacts not touch?"
"Conditioned by name & form
is contact.
In longing do graspings,
possessions have their cause.
When longing isn't
mine-ness does not exist.
When forms have disappeared
contacts don't touch."
"For one arriving at what
does form disappear?
How do pleasure & pain disappear?
Tell me this.
My heart is set
on knowing how
they disappear."
"One not percipient of
perceptions
not percipient of aberrant perceptions,
not unpercipient,
nor percipient of what's disappeared:[2]
for one arriving at this,
form disappears --
for complication-classifications[3]
have their cause in
perception."
((So, be trained to
‘know’/’detect’ what is going on there.))
"What we have asked, you have told us.
We ask one more thing.
Please tell it.
Do some of the wise
say that just this much is the utmost,
the purity of the spirit[4] is here?
Or do they say
that it's other than this?"
"Some of the wise
say that just this much is the utmost,
the purity of the spirit is here.
But some of them,
who say they are skilled,
say it's the moment
with no clinging remaining.
((i.e., equanimity))
Knowing,
'Having known, they still are
dependent,'[5]
the sage, ponders dependencies.
On knowing them, released,
he doesn't get into disputes,
doesn't meet with becoming & not-
: he's enlightened."
((So, aloof from the dependencies – with our
experiential wisdom!))
From: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp4-11.html
"Those who, dwelling on
views,
dispute, saying, 'Only this is true':
do they all incur blame,
or also earn praise there?"
"[The praise:] It's such
a little thing,
not at all appeasing.[1]
I speak of two fruits of dispute;
and seeing this, you shouldn't dispute --
seeing the state
where there's no dispute
as secure.
One who knows
doesn't get involved
in whatever are
commonplace
conventional
views.
One who is uninvolved:
when he's forming no preference
for what's seen, for what's heard,
why would he get
involved?
((Opposite of equanimity is like a law of
multiplication, things get tangled up easily…))
Those for whom precepts
are ultimate
say that purity's
a matter of self-restraint.
Undertaking a practice,
they devote themselves to it:
'Let's train just in this,
and then there would be purity.'
Those who say they are skilled
are [thus] led on to becoming.
But if one of them falls
from his precepts or practice,
he trembles,
having failed in his actions.
He hopes for, longs for, purity,
like a lost caravan leader
far from home.
((So, this is the wrong direction – in the
sense that there is fixed posture whereas one should be flexible as in going
for a ride – with the fact.))
But one who's abandoned precepts &
practices[2]
-- all --
things that are blamable, blameless,[3] not hoping for 'pure or impure,'[4] would live in compassion & peace,
without taking up peace,[5]
detached.
((A question here is how to see this detached
stance compared to Mahayana’s stance of living in the world…Perhaps, at the
Buddha’s time, such view was a secondary concern. The nature of people’s suffering was more
imminent, perhaps?))
……
The
brahman has nothing led by another, when considering
what's grasped among doctrines. Thus he
has gone beyond disputes, for he doesn't regard as best the knowledge of a
teaching, any other mental state.[7]
'I
know. I see. That's just how it is!' -- Some believe purity's in terms of view.
But even if a person has seen, what good does it do him?
Having slipped past, they speak of purity in connection with something or
somebody else. A person, in seeing, sees
name & form. Having seen, he'll know
only these things. No matter if he's
seen little, a lot, the skilled don't say purity's in connection with that.
((Be aware what is going on when one see,
experience,…so that one does not get caught again.))
A person entrenched in his teachings, honoring
a preconceived view,
isn't easy to discipline. Whatever he depends on he describes it as lovely,
says that it's purity, that there he saw truth.
The
brahman, evaluating, isn't involved with conjurings, doesn't follow views, isn't tied even to
knowledge.[8] And
on knowing whatever's conventional, commonplace, he remains equanimous: 'That's
what others hold onto.'
((Very
precise! After any insight, therefore,
one needs to be – or to stay at ‘zero’))
Having released the knots
that tie him down,
the sage here in the world
doesn't follow a faction
when disputes have arisen.
At peace among those not at peace,
he's equanimous, doesn't hold on:
'That's what others hold onto.'
Giving
up old fermentations, not forming new, neither pursuing desire, nor entrenched
in his teachings, he's totally released from viewpoints, enlightened.
He doesn't adhere to the world, is without
self-rebuke; is enemy-free[9] with regard to all things seen, heard, or
sensed.
((So, what good is he to the world???? No much in the external world, perhaps? Yet, what good is it to have ‘external’
without ‘internal’ anyway.))
His burden laid down, the sage totally
released is improper / is free from conjuring hasn't stopped / isn't
impassioned isn't worth wanting / doesn't desire,"[10]
the Blessed One said.
From: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp4-11.html
In Vipassana
as taught by Mr. Goenka, practicing metta meditation (or extending metta,
i.e., “May all beings be happy!”) is done after one has established awareness
and equanimity. If not, it is constrained,
not genuine, or possibly just a game/ritual – with out the ground.
Thinking on various subjects or
having a dialogue (or any activities of our life) is to be done in the same
manner. Otherwise, there is impurity (i.e.,
corruption by the negatively conditioned mind) clouding up the process. This process is like an art. As one thinks or acts, one needs to practice
if he is deviating from the path. Whether
one can do this depends on the skill for the one to sense the impurity. (Such sensitivity may be developed by the
practice of Vipassana for example)
How, then, one knows if he is
established in awareness and equanimity in the long run? By eradicating the errors in our mind(negatively
conditioned mind habit: sankhara) by practice as in Vipassana. More we
are equipped with this skill to eradicate errors and detect problem state of
mind and be able to deal with it, better we will be in handling the situation,
e.g., presenting views, understanding views, etc.
To say this differently, if
we are not well established on such skill, it may be of no use to keep reading
various views to gain some idea (or to speak, act, etc. for that matter). This is so since one may not be well
established in distinguishing what is the Way and what is not from the sane
stance. Then, it may be much better to
not to indulge ourselves in reading, speaking, etc., but to establish the skill
first. Certainly, this will make the
process more efficient in reaching the core of wisdom and compassion. Our job is one of eradication. (Of course certain reading may lead one to
the right practice. So, this process is
a bit convoluted… like finding the match between learning and practice, or to
go through catch-22 to establish shila (in the larger
sense; all right conduct)- smadhi-prajna.
But, for a lay person, how can
one find time to do all of these?
Ultimately, the choice has to be made by each person. Facing the complexity of issues, the specific
path may vary. Practicing Plan-Do-Check-Act
like a heart beat may be an idea to move on while reflecting the progress.
Arahat is too timid to face the world, being advocates of
escapism. In this respect they are
egoist. (p.149, Living by Zen,
Daisetz)
This is one of the strongest
statements of Daisetz Suzuki I have ever found.
Contrasting to the above, I can make another one: Mahayanist is too arrogant to think that they
can help others yet in delusion.
Or, we may see the situation
with the eye of prajna (?). Here, the 1st
one my be rewritten: Hinayana
is the equivalent of Mahayana in that the compassion prevails when they reach
the other shore. The 2nd one
may be rewritten: If one is serving
others without considering his self, there is no arrogance and delusion found
in him.
Instead of being lost in the
discussion, we are to live truthfully.
So, let us Live… but not live in the maze of conceptual discussions. Then, we may arrive to “the point” that says
Mahayana is Hinayana and this shore is the other
shore.
Thinking to have more money,
win the debate, or catch a big fish,
we may live our whole life to
achieve something.
As in playing any game,
however,
we may end up in just winning
or losing here and there.
Sometimes we may feel elated,
other times not.
Or, we may move from one game
(i.e., thinking) to the next continuously.
Being occupied to live like this, we may even forget
that we are playing the game
--- of ephemeral nature.
Such life may be compared to
chasing a blue bird until the end of time.
But, I hear a voice pointing
that delusion is nirvana.
When we realize that the
heaven is found right here and now,
what a miraculous event that
may be, wouldn’t you ‘think’?
* I hear a bird singing out
in the field, as if saying, “Yep, yep, Sadhu, sadhu”
* back to my home page: www.suzaki.has.it