Emilio Campos

Robert Chang
Religion 225 Final
January 14, 2011

2. The bodhisattva loves all beings as if each were his only child. He
becomes sick when they are sick and is cured when they are cured. You ask
me, Majur, whence comes my sickness; the sicknesses of the bodhisattvas
arise from great compassion.
The above passage is spoken by the zen master Vimalakirti to the
crown prince, Manjusri, in the Mahayana scripture known as The Holy
Teaching of Vimalakirti. Manjusri has been sent by the Buddha himself to
investigate the apparent sickness that is suffered by Vimalakirti and upon
being questioned about his ailment Vimalakirti responds by explaining that
his sickness is the very sickness possessed by all bodhisattvas.
Vimalakirti describes a deeper understanding of what it means for a
being to attain enlightenment than what has previously been taught by the
Buddha Gautama and it is for this very reason that the Buddha sends
Manjusri to him. The previous understanding of nirvana was as a state of
having achieved the cessation of suffering which arises from attachment to
the self and to all material attachments to the self. It seems as though one
could achieve this cessation through their own personal development and
the following of the eightfold path, but Vimalakirti explicates that this is not
the case and that ultimate enlightenment and the absolute end of suffering
is not as personal as had been previously believed. A necessary property
possessed by a bodhisattva is that of ultimate compassion for all beings and
a necessary quality of this compassion is the ability to empathize with all
beings. Therefore one can never be free of this sickness unless they are able
to liberate all beings from suffering and aide them in the achievement of true
enlightenment.

In this passage Vimalakirti has illustrated the first of the four noble
truths and its effect on all living beings as well as the true nature of
cessation (the fourth noble truth) as it requires that all beings achieve
nirvana. This in turn also illustrates dependent origination since no being
can truly realize the cessation of suffering unless all beings realize it and
thus the true nature of the path (the third noble truth) as a necessarily
universal path is clear. One last distinction that is made in this passage is
the distinction between the buddhas who achieve nirvana expound their
doctrine and then achieve parinirvana and the boddhisattvas who postpone
the attainment of parinirvana in order to ensure that all beings can become
enlightened.

3. Wisdom never had a tree,

the bright mirror lacks a stand.
Fundamentally there is not a single thing
Where could the dust and grime collect?
This verse represents Hui-nengs effort to express his understanding of
enlightenment to the Fifth Patriarch from the story known as the Platform
Scripture of the Sixth Patriarch. Hui-neng was a barbarian from the south
who sought to learn the Dharma from the Fifth Patriarch of the northern
school of Buddhism. He arrived at this monastery when the Fifth Patriarch
was seeking a successor, and he decided that the pupil who was able to
demonstrate their full understanding of enlightenment in a single verse
would become the next patriarch.
This passage is an excellent use of skilled linguistic methods to
describe the central concepts of enlightenment and no self. In order to
properly analyze these concepts in this verse one must also read the verse
written by the Fifth Patriarchs pupil, Shen-hsui, which shows good but
incomplete understanding of enlightenment: Our body is the tree of Perfect
Wisdom, and our mind is a bright mirror. At all times diligently wipe them, so
that they will be free from dust. This passage illustrates the dharmas that
cause a persons inner Buddha-nature to be obscured and that a person must
analyze their own nature through meditation and right action in order to
eliminate this dust. The Fifth Patriarch states that this understanding of
enlightenment is incomplete because although it shows that he knows the
path towards enlightenment Shen-hsui has not made the final necessary step
(which incorporates no-self) towards true understanding. Shen-hsui

understands the cause of suffering and how one must train himself in order
to remove these dharmas, but errs in his assumption of an underlying self
(the tree and the mirror).
This is where the subtle difference between Shen-hsui and Hui-nengs
verses comes to the forefront as the key distinction between incomplete and
complete understanding of enlightenment. Hui-nengs verse states that the
form of the tree and the mirror, too, are results of the dharmas and that
there is in fact no underlying being. That the Buddha-nature is essentially
linked to the doctrine of no-self (the human ego being the hardest
attachment to severe) and all beings are empty beneath worldly defilements
and sufferings, thus incorporating another major Buddhist ideal, voidness.

1. Compare and contrast two of the following traditions that we have studied
in the second half of the course: Pure Land, Chan/Zen, and Tantric Buddhism.
Your discussion of similarities and differences between them should touch on
at least some of, but need not be limited to, the following points: concepts of
liberation, forms of practice, use of language, role of the teacher, approaches
to death, etc. What qualifies them as part of the Mahyna?
Pure Land and Zen Buddhism are two forms of Buddhism that
developed centuries after the death of the Buddha Gautama in order to
rectify branching beliefs as to how the Dharma should be practiced as the
original Dharma in its purest form recedes further and further into the past.
It is worth noting that, like traditional Buddhism, both of these factions of
Buddhism put a high emphasis on the necessity of meditation in order to
attain spiritual enlightenment, however, it seems that it has become an even
more central tenet of these two factions than it had been in the centuries
preceding their arising. These two branches of modern Buddhism hold their
greatest similarity in the fact that they were both developed in an effort to
protect and interpret the Dharma in a time when far removed from its purest
existence, immediately upon being expounded by its source, Siddhartha
Gautama.
One very interesting development in these forms of Buddhism is a new
emphasis on structure. Although traditional Buddhism did have a structure,
as described by the Buddha, between monks and laypeople the Zen tradition
made an addition of the increased role of the master and his pupils. The
master, or patriarch as the master was known at the conception of the Zen
tradition, takes on pupils and teaches them the Dharma while they live
carrying out everyday tasks. One of the most central doctrines of the Zen

tradition is that of emptiness and the belief that our innermost nature is
simply the Buddha-nature (fo-hsing) which is to be realized in a direct and
sudden experience of inner awakening (wu/satori) (Gethin 262). The master
is portrayed in Zen literature as behaving in unexpected and spontaneous
ways and responding to questions with apparent non-sequiturs and riddles
(Gethin 262) in an attempt to break their pupils free from traditional and
habitual modes of thinking in order to achieve sudden enlightenment. The
master does so because Zen philosophy believes that the conventional
teachings of the Dharma put the mind in thought patterns that are less
conducive to sudden attainment, and that one must use abstract and skillful
means of liberation to achieve nirvana.
The very idea of sudden attainment is one of the central questions of
Zen Buddhism and there has been a great debate over the question of
whether attainment is a gradual process or a spontaneous occurrence. The
Sixth Patriarch Hui-neng explains that there is, in fact, no distinction between
sudden and gradual enlightenment but rather it is merely the mind of the
person who attains enlightenment that determines the rate of attainment,
and that the enlightenment that is achieved is the same in both cases (Stryk
338). The Sixth Patriarch also expounds the importance of meditation in Zen
Buddhism by stating: meditation and wisdom are the bases. First of all,
do not be deceived that the two are different. They are one reality and not
two. Meditation is the substance (ti) of wisdom and wisdom is the function
(yung) of meditation (Stryk 337). In the Zen tradition practitioners are

constantly seeking the Ultimate Wisdom, which is synonymous with

enlightenment, and the Sixth Patriarch dictates that the attainment of
wisdom is necessarily linked to meditation. In this sense all of Zen Buddhism
is centered upon the doctrine of emptiness and the practice of meditation
because the ultimate goal is the attainment of enlightenment and the
wisdom of voidness that one can attain in order to achieve this goal is
gathered through the use of meditation.
Pure Land Buddhism puts a similar emphasis upon meditation in order
to achieve its ultimate goal, however, in this branch of Buddhism the
ultimate goal has been radically shifted away from achieving enlightenment.
Pure Land Buddhists focus their meditations upon the Buddha Amitabha for
the purpose of being reborn into his Pure Land in order to receive his
teachings of the Dharma. According to the vows he made as the bodhisattva
Dharmakara anyone who thinks on him in good faith and praises him will be
admitted into his Pure Land upon rebirth (Strong 199). The most effective
means of doing so is to meditate upon the image of Amitabha which makes
meditation a central tenet of Pure Land Buddhism, however, there purpose of
this meditation is radically different from its purpose in traditional and Zen
Buddhism. In traditional (and Zen) Buddhism the purpose of meditation and
the ultimate goal is the achievement of enlightenment and the cessation of
suffering, however, Pure Land Buddhism believes in the eventual decline and
disappearance of the Buddhas teachings. These Buddhists emphasize the
futility of expecting to be able, by ones own efforts, to develop the good

conduct and meditation necessary or awakening in the final days of the

Dharma (Gethin 264). It is as a result of this belief that Pure Land
Buddhists strive to be reborn in the Pure Land of Amitabha (or in this world in
the time of the next Buddha, Maitreya).
We can see very clear similarities between the practice of Zen and
Pure Land Buddhism and have noted that the key differences between them
lie in their views on the attainment of enlightenment. It is clear that both of
the schools of Buddhism evolved directly from the original Mahayanist
Buddhism in the sense that they both have similar views of the Buddhas and
of the Dharma, however, there is a clear distinction in their approach to
following the Dharma. It seems as though there is a strong divide where the
Zen tradition believes that enlightenment can be attained by any being in
their own lifetime and through their own efforts (though they are urged to
use the assistance of a master), while the Pure Land tradition believes that
enlightenment can only be achieved through being taught the Dharma
directly from a Buddha and utilize meditation in order to assure being reborn
in a land or time that offers them access to these Buddhas.

1. Discuss the concepts of emptiness and nonduality in the Mahyna. How

are they connected to notions of the bodhisattva ideal, skillful means, and
the relationship of sasra and nirv a? In what ways are they continuous
with the teachings of the earlier Buddhist tradition, and in what ways
different?
The Mahayanist Buddhist tradition holds many concepts and precepts
to be central, but, although there are many ideals, nearly all of them can be
reduced down to the central doctrines of emptiness and nonduality. Even
these concepts themselves are inherently linked and essentially different
expressions of a very similar central concept, and are able to be used in
conjunction in order to highlight other important ideals of Buddhist thought.
However, before one can understand their relationship to other aspects of
Buddhist philosophy one must understand emptiness and nonduality by
themselves.
Emptiness is the most important doctrine of Buddhism in all its forms
and is an idea that constantly eludes perfect descriptions. The idea is
essentially that despite the human minds desire to give names to things,
thus rendering them immutable independent objects, there is no actual
substance to anything. This is linked to the concept of dependent arising in
the sense that all things are connected and have influence over each other,
and thus there exist no independently arising ideals or objects: all elements
of reality are empty, without characteristic; they do not come into being,
they do not cease; they are not defiled, not undefiled; not defective, not
perfect (Strong 155). In this passage the Buddha explains to his disciple
Sariputra that in order to achieve the Ultimate Wisdom of all things one must

not become attached to ascribing permanent identities and properties to

worldly elements which are, in fact, empty. To see any dharma as existing
in itself is to grasp at it, to try to hold on to it, but dharmas are like dreams,
magical illusions, echoes, reflected images, mirages, space; like the moon
reflected in water, a fairy castle, a shadow, or a magical creation (Gethin
237). This passage highlights the concept of emptiness through the use of
skillful means and is similar to the passage in The Holy Teaching of
Vimalakirti that begins the chapter entitled The Goddess where Vimalakirti
employs the use of various metaphors in order to describe the boddhisattva
ideal of how to consider all beings (Thurman 56).
Before we proceed into the use of skillful means in order to express
seemingly inexpressible concepts we must first discuss the relationship
between emptiness and nonduality. Nonduality is very similar to the concept
of emptiness in that it is essentially the doctrine that there exist no extremes
but merely different expressions of the same inherent emptiness of the
world. Nonduality is utilized in order to reach the conclusion that there is no
underlying distinction between subject and object, which in turn leads to the
doctrine of no-self. Since things are inherently empty there exists no
underlying self which one should become attached to and one should not
focus on the duality between a person as their body and as something more
than their body (which could be described in western religious terminology
as a soul). It is in nonduality where one realizes the Ultimate Wisdom of
the Middle Way, the very ideal by which the boddhisattvas live their lives.

However, even the conception of the Middle Way can be shown to be

dualistic since one can conceptualize things as representing the Middle Way
and as not representing the Middle Way.
As with emptiness the bodhisattva must employ skillful means in order
to truly express the ideal of nonduality, and this very feat is attempted by
numerous boddhisattvas in The Holy Teaching of Vimalakirtis ninth chapter,
The Dharma Door of Nonduality. However, Vimalakirti is able to show the
most skillful method in expressing nonduality with his response to the other
bodhisattvas many attempts to explicate the concept through examples of
things that are dualistic and an attempt through skillful means to describe
how one can see through the illusion of duality and achieve Ultimate
Wisdom. The prince Manjusri explains that all of these descriptions are
dualistic themselves and that the only way to express nonduality is to
express nothing, to say nothing, to explain nothing, to announce nothing, to
indicate nothing, and to designate nothing (Thurman 77). Vimalakirti then
displays his understanding of nonduality by not speaking a word when he is
asked to teach it. This passage both highlights the nature of nonduality as
well as the skillful use of words and metaphors that must be used by a
bodhisattva in order to express such abstract concepts as nonduality and
emptiness.
It is with these tools (emptiness and nonduality) that one is able to
understand the relationship between nirvana and samsara. In the discourse
between the Buddha and Milinda, Gautama teaches the emptiness of all

material things but also discusses the emptiness of nirvana and how it is
unlike any other things that can be conceived, again through the use of
skillful means (Stryk 89-143). However, one with understanding of
nonduality will quickly point out that samsara and nirvana are dualistic in
nature and, adhering to the doctrine, one can see that there is in fact no
difference between them. An example that is used is the idea of using
poison to cure poison (the former referring to an antidote) representing the
idea that the wise can get rid of passion by means of passion itself (Strong
208). It is in this way that we see the ultimate relationship between nirvana
and samsara: Nirvana is more than just the liberation from samsara, as this
implies a dualistic relationship, but it is also the freedom from attachment to
the very idea of nirvana.
In order to become enlightened one must realize not just nonduality
and emptiness but also the nonduality of enlightenment and
unenlightenment and the emptiness of the concept of emptiness. The
understanding of these precepts is tantamount to realizing the bodhisattva
ideal and the relationship between nirvana and samsara. The use of skillful
means is necessary for the understanding and teaching of these ideas and
one of the greatest examples of these methods lies in the verses written by
the potential Sixth Patriarchs of the Zen branch, Shen-hsiu and Hui-neng
(Stryck 334). The formers verse represents a mastery of linguistic tools in
order to express the necessarily of the practice of the bodhisattva ideal while

the latters verse represents the skillful expression of the concepts of no-self,
nonduality, and emptiness.
These concepts form the fundamental principles of the bodhisattva
ideal and though an enlightened master might employ skillful means in order
to show a person the door to enlightenment the final jump can only be made
by a student who can truly understand the Ultimate Wisdom of the
nonduality of nirvana and samsara (and of all things) as well as the inherent
emptiness of all things.