When looking at Tinna Tinh mantras on youtube, intermingled was this talk by HHDL - Discourses on Heart Sutra (also available here). With deep respect Zandtao has some trust in His Holiness the Dalai Lama, similar to trust in Buddhadasa and Thay. Tibetan has many proliferations, in the past HHDL has taken those proliferations and made them presentable without demanding belief.
Please be aware that much of this reflection is exploratory, hopefully Zandtao's quest into the unknown will make sense to you and help with your own quest. Please also be aware this exploration can be confusing bringing language to sunnata.
Does Zandtao have faith in the Heart sutra? Does Zandtao want to have faith in the Heart sutra? To investigate these he began by seeing if HHDL could help. His Discourses on Heart Sutra is basically a Q&A so Zandtao cut the talk into these Q&A so that each answer can be studied. Looking at editing the Q&A there is much to grapple with and understand, is this the beginning of prajna-paramita?
These are the 10 questions:-
1. If we only recite the Heart sutra, will we derive any benefit?
2. What does it mean to continue reciting and copying the Heart sutra?
3. Various Interpretations of the Heart sutra
4. Teaching of the Mantra
5. Inner spiritual level of a person
6. Every sentient being has the potential to become Buddha
7. What is shunya?
8. The Emptiness of Buddha, Emptiness of emptiness ....
9. Does the human race have a hopeful future?
10. Live with the Heart sutra
The purpose is not to underline and reinforce everything HHDL said, this reflection is to help increase faith in sunnata - not necessarily increase faith in the Heart sutra. It is interesting to note that Zandtao has not studied suttas or sutras before - but interpretations of trusted teachers. Suggestion - watch the whole discourse, examine what has been taken from the discourse, and use the clips to consider questions you want more detail of.
Emptiness is not nothingness, it is the "absence of independent existence" 7 - anatta - no self, or Buddhadasa's void of self. It means "ultimately there is inter-dependence" - Thay's interbeing; "no independent absolute". Through investigation there should be clarity. Look at paper, as we go deeper and deeper into paper do we see essence, no we see causes and conditions that "create" the paper. As Buddhadasa did, investigate for "self" and we cannot find it - the 5 khandhas are sufficient.
"We therefore conclude that things exist due to other factors". The "nature of existence must be dependent". Since form is there, there is no other way (independence) except empty. "Empty is form because of absence of independence". Since "there is absence of independence, therefore the causes and conditions" must "create" the existence as the other factors. Empty is form. Idappaccayata-paticcasamuppada. When this was written it seemed to follow, now it feels like there is just quoting HHDL; normally when rereading or proofing stuff makes the meaning clearer - not with this. There is no clear seeing about emptiness and form, there is following of HHDL's logic but there is minimal insight - causes and conditions are clearer.
When reality is only causes and conditions, is it surprising that the conditioning of ego causes so many problems? This makes "beyond" so much more important but where does what takes us beyond conditioning come from? The path - the 4 Dhamma comrades, for Zandtaomed meditation; or from sunnata as the path is sunnata. Within us can arise naturally the capacity of going beyond conditioning, but meditation is a much more formative approach.
Long before the threshold Zandtaomed accepted the path was sunnata, but now it feels there is a need for graeter clarity on this - that is OK - part of learning.
Waking up the next day it was necessary to review progress. Firstly Zandtao does not have faith in sutt/ras - never has had, there is trust in teachers but Zandtaomed does not have faith in Buddhadasa, Thay or HHDL.
For Zandtao anatta leads to most of the conclusions HHDL comes up with leading to causes and conditions. Anatta says there is no independent existence, and therefore dependent existence means causes and conditions - Idapaccayata-paticcasamuppada. Using Buddhadasa's word this is void of self - just causes and conditions. We can conclude that existence is due to other factors - causes and conditions.
What is important is to go beyond conditioning, this is the mantra "gaate, gaate, paragaate, parasaamgate, bodhi svoha" - different stages of beyond. Stages and targets are not liked (4) because for some seekers development only ends up being seen in terms of those targets. So we have the question "what takes us beyond conditioning?" MwB develops 4 Dhamma Comrades that take us beyond. How does sunnata help? An answer in review - sunnata is the path that gives or brings the 4 Dhamma Comrades when there is connection. And sunnata is the only help, where else does the Dhamma comrades come from - as they are beyond causes and conditions.
"Removing the I and mine from the 5 khandhas" is Buddhadasa's thing. How is this done? MwB - Zandtaomed's words - perfecting the vihara - making the vihara free of attachment, Buddhadasa's highest atammayata - a state of non-conditioning. Viveka-Zandtao took Zandtao to faith, faith's magnetism touching Dhamma, faith arising from releasing consciousness when we let go of ego during MwB.
The emphasis is on vihara and atammayata - nonconcoctabilty - no conditioning, and this is done perfecting the vihara. So how does sunnata help? Yet HHDL suggest meditating on sunnata, and studying. If studying involves the intellectual mind (sankhara-khandha) then intellectually studying sunnata is not natural, what other study is there? Mindfulness can grapple with sunnata but not intellect.
What is more understanding than anatta and idapaccayata-paticcasamuppada?
How does sunnata help? Where is beyond conditioning? It is here but it is not conditioned. Where is sunnata? It is here but it is beyond conditioning. With form there is conditioning and beyond conditioning - form and sunnata. What is there to see? That the form can be conditioned and not conditioned, it is a choice whether to attach to ego in form - in the khandhas. Added in review.
"Empty is form, form is empty" What is the need of this? Form has no self and arises from causes and conditions - interbeing eg the paper. Human beings have no self and arise from causes and conditions - interbeing. Seekers need to learn to go beyond conditioning, that comes from MwB which builds the 4 Dhamma comrades by perfecting the vihara. Why do we need to know more than anatta? Is sunnata more than anatta?
What we need to know is what we can work on to perfect the vihara. Can we do anything else other than perfect the vihara? Let's start with definitions - vihara is the 5 khandhas, kaya, vedana, sanna and sankhara together with the vinnana the other 4 khandhas need. Where do the khandhas end? Buddhadasa spoke of removing the I and mine from the 5 khandhas, how do we know that we have done that? Who or what runs the vihara? In perfection, sunnata. Then we have the lack of suffering in Tinna Tinh's lyrics of the Heart sutra (skandhas = khandhas).
Now who is running the vihara? A mixture of egos, selves and Prajna (sunnata) because Zandtao has not perfected it. During meditation various attachments are let go, and with the released consciousness faith moves to universal consciousness - touches Dhamma - touches sunnata. Can Zandtao know what is ego, self and Prajna? Faith's magnetism brings in Prajna but can Prajna be known, does Zandtao have the tools to know it? Insted there is work on attachment.
Is HHDL saying sunnata can be known through meditation? And if a seeker can know sunnata then can s/he see the ego and self clearer to let it go?
In 10, for HHDL living with the heart means there can be less disturbance. "If you gain some experience out of deeper understanding, and familiarization of the concept of emptiness, concept of inter-dependency, certainly our view, our attitude are widened." When we come across problems in daily life, always we look at the holistic picture, and disturbances will be much less. If the mind is narrow, small disturbances become a problem. If we combine this familiarization with compassion - infinite altruism, it is "useful".
We cannot know sunnata, but we can have some concept of it even though trying to have that concept can be disturbing as an ego of sankhara-khandha will always want to know more. So HHDL's purpose in trying to remove ignorance is for a useful practice in daily life.
What is useful? Just knowing - removing ignorance - brings wisdom - a wider view.
So HHDL encourages a “concept of emptiness”, and that having that “concept” with compassion provides a more holistic picture minimising the impact of the minor disturbances of daily life. “Concept” is disturbing as it is associated with the intellect – sankhara-khandha – and therefore risks intellectual ego. In 3 HHDL discusses various interpretations, and notes that there are differences in these interpretations; he also notes that in different places within the suttas the Buddha presents different meanings of the same word. In 3 HHDL recommends comparative study, and Zandtao reacts to this because of proliferations.
What is meant when Zandtao trusts Buddhadasa or Thay? Effectively he is valuing what they teach higher than other teachers. What does comparative study do? It relies on intellect which in one sense places all teachings on an equal footing. When Zandtao is trusting Buddhadasa or Thay, he is saying that their teachings are likely to lead to wisdom .... for him – as they have in the past. Intellect would place their teachings on a par with other teachings, to Zandtao that lack of discernment would be a mistake.
Teachings need to be evaluated through mindfulness and wisdom – and not intellectual comparison; when there is comparative study there is a risk that such study will be reduced to intellectual comparison – that is not mindfulness and wisdom. Putting words into HHDL’s mouth, hopefully appropriately, comparative study needs to use mindfulness and wisdom – not sankhara-khandha on its own. Unfortunately within Buddhism there is much intellectual proliferation, such proliferation has been resisted in the past primarily by using mindfulness and wisdom on the Buddhadasa’s interpretation of the suttas. But using mindfulness and wisdom with Thay’s teachings has taken Zandtao across this difficult Prajna threshold.
Here it is worth noting Zandtaomed's Inner Guide – a personification of limited Inner Wisdom. Through meditation and elsewhere this Inner Guide has provided insight and suggested books to study – directions to go. Through this Zandtaomed has come to rely on the Inner Guide as saying this study will bring wisdom, and developing the inner guide is part of the elder's teaching. Using wisdom on comparative study would be a kind of elimination of teachings, study all and “wisely” eliminate – this has not been Zandtao's learning approach because of the Inner Guide. Determining wisdom is a long and drawn-out process, for comparative study to do that with all the teachings might well be a time-limited impossibility.
Hence the need for trust in teachers – trust but not belief, there isn't belief in Buddhadasa or Thay but a trust because their teachings have helped learning. Because in the tradition people have learned from the sutt/ras there would be some trust. This approach of non-belief is an approach that comes from interpreting the Kalama Sutta; in a sense quest led by inner guide and using this positive-sceptical approach is inspired by the Kalama Sutta – or at least Buddhadasa’s interpretation of it.
Elsewhere HHDL spoke of meditating on sunnata. Does this mean intellectual comparison? Through meditation comes mindfulness and wisdom going beyond the sankhara-khandha. But there is risk. Concept is risk of intellectual ego, study comparison is risk of intellectual ego, as evidenced by proliferation.
Theravada appears to approach this risk in a restrictive way. In public teaching monks quote suttas, and online on occasions it can seem like a game of “sutta snap”; it appears that in Theravada seekers are discouraged from considering personal experience. The process of attaining wisdom arises from the confronting of teachings with daily life processed through the mindfulness and wisdom gained on the path. This is wisdom through experience. Zandtaomed encourages seekers to learn through experience – not intellectual comparison, but this does run the risk of personal attachment – lacking atammayata; knowing the risk helps reduce the attachment.
Intellectual comparison can arise through an academic approach in which proliferation abounds. To some extent academia does not value one set of teachings above another, it simply compares intellectually – equally – giving credence or acumen to academic writings that are referenced more profusely; this is not necessarily wisdom but mutual agreement - conditioning. Academia does not formally recognise wisdom, it cannot measure wisdom; academic measurement comes from status within the academic system together with proliferation of published work – publishing and status going hand-in-hand being driven by the publishers’ profit motive. Bringing such egoic processes to the spiritual world is not constructive.
Developing an understanding with the inner guide is a way through this; it is not without risk and is meant to reduce proliferation although the Zandtao website does not attest to this. In 3 on the Heart sutra HHDL praises the work of Nalanda university historically, promoting some works and noting differences – he also notes that there could be notable works in other languages he is not aware of. Are these interpretations based in sankhara-khandha as opposed to wisdom? Encouraging comparative study without the discrimination of wisdom is not a way forward for zandtaomed's inner guide. Thay has worked on both the Heart sutra and the prajnaparamita sutra, Zandtao can use this to build a “concept of emptiness” that will pale into comparison the disturbances of daily life. Once this reflection on the HHDL discourses has been finished.
Just as an aside, I was drawn to mantras as music on my travels two years before I retired. I wonder how much I liked the “music” because the people singing were devotees. What did I learn? Maybe I learned something subconsciously because I have no idea what the words mean. Even Tinna Tinh’s Heart sutra that I like listening to is in Vietnamese – there are translated subtitles but I do like her “Gate gate …” – I think beyond now. Maybe this is imagination but I trust that devotees are putting their muse into the chanting and that is what I pick up on. 
“Concept of emptiness” is still troubling. But there are some parallels with maths. Maths is unreal. Let’s start with number, positive, negative and imaginary. Negative and imaginary numbers don’t exist – they are theoretical constructs, but using them leads to practical value. Even positive numbers are conceptual. 3 has meaning as a descriptor – 3 oranges, but does 3 exist on its own? Yet again using positive numbers has practical value. What about infinity? Does infinity exist? Yet, amongst others, infinity has a practical value in the limiting process. It is legitimate and pragmatic to say that the “Limit as x tends to infinity of 1/x is zero”, something that has practical usage – zero arises from theoretical constructs of limit and infinity. Concepts can have practical usage if used wisely.
Sunnata is not theoretical, in fact the opposite that is sunnata being reality is true. We live in a world of unreal attachment and kilesa, and the reality is sunnata. How conceptual is the understanding of this last sentence? But it does lead to practical usage – recognising that attachment is unreal and letting it go. So at this stage the measure of “concept of sunnata” is whether that understanding is of practical use. The parallel with maths that is being drawn is that practical usage can be derived from concepts. Do humans have the tools – the khandhas are not sufficient tools – to understand sunnata? HHDL suggests seekers can have a concept that will lead to practical usage; diamond sutra advises seekers to hold to the practical path that led to prajna-paramita – crossing the threshold; can we put the two together and suggest that a "concept of sunnata" can give practical usage for following path?
But in 4 HHDL does talk of perceiving sunnata directly, he talks of the 5 stages of gaate, gaate – beyond – Zandtao will use the term “5 stages of beyond” – and HHDL perceives sunnata directly there. Go, go, go beyond, go thoroughly beyond, and establish yourself in enlightenment. How can we know enlightenment? Zandtaomed doesn't use targets – stages – either. Maybe this is to be reflected on later?
In 5 HHDL speaks of his own spiritual level and the risk of spiritual narcissism (my words). He says he uses the mantra of the “5 stages of beyond” to teach him humility. He placed himself at stage 3 – somewhere. Zandtaomed doesn’t like comparisons but if that is where HHDL with 4 hours of meditation a day for 40 years and all his wisdom what chances do "typical seekers" have? This again leads to reflection on the wisdom of the Diamond Sutra, however you interact with the Heart sutra maintain the discipline of your path that brought you to and over the threshold, for Zandtaomed this focus is on atammayata.
It raises the question again, what more than atammayata can be learned? Is any “concept of sunnata” built on more than atammayata? In 6 as is often pointed out (in Theravada as well?), all sentient beings are potential buddhas but does this mean starting at the “top end” – in this case focussing on the Heart sutra? Whilst there is no reason to go against this “all sentient beings” teaching, it falls into the category of belief – even though as a seeker there is some experiential evidence with the occasional nibbana-dhatu - glimpses. Do nibbana-dhatu increase with a focus on the Heart sutra? Zandtao knows they will increase with improving atammayata because that has happened already, it just feels natural. Heart sutra – don’t know, HHDL and Mahayana say yes – but for Zandtao that is belief at the moment. An idea NOT faith. But Thay has opened the door – the threshold has been crossed.
There is a developing clarity that involves faith in the Buddha, the Diamond sutra, atammayata and proliferation. Zandtao has faith in “What the Buddha Taught” but to explain and understand “What the Buddha Taught” has been learnt from Buddhadasa. But there is no faith in Buddhadasa, Zandtao trusts Buddhadasa, and based on practice so far that trust has led to an understanding of “What the Buddha Taught”. But what Buddhadasa writes is a proliferation (sankhara-khandha) of “What the Buddha Taught” so proliferation is not all bad. Equally what is written as Zandtaomed or Zandtao is proliferation, yet it is meant as experience combined with the teachings of Buddhadasa’s interpretation of “What the Buddha Taught”. What Zandtaomed/Zandtao write is proliferation but hopefully there is truth.
Now that the threshold has been crossed, Zandtao's quest has crossed over from “What the Buddha Gautama Taught”. Crossing over that threshold is asking for Zandtao to engage with different teachings, but they are not “What Buddha Gautama Taught”. So how far does Zandtao trust these teachings? Zandtao trusts the proliferation of Buddhadasa because his proliferation is based on an immersion of “What the Buddha Gautama Taught”. But what of the other proliferations that are part of Mahayana? In the Diamond sutra the Buddha Gautama (my understanding) tells Zandtao to hold strong to the teachings that got him to this threshold – in summary atammayata.
This leads to the following study question – does the study of the sutra (NOT sutta) lead to a greater understanding of What the Buddha Gautama Taught?
But it also leads to an understanding in the way of approaching proliferation. Is the proliferation based on “What Buddha Gautama Taught”? In Thay's book("Awakening the Heart" by Thich Nhat Hanh) his sut(t/r)as begin with the 4 foundations of mindfulness, he even notes that within Mahayana not sufficient attention is paid to this base – to the teachings that took this seeker to the threshold. If you are going to go off “seeking” – “questing into the unknown”, there needs to be a solid foundation – atammayata. With that solid foundation (Diamond sutra), proliferation can add to understanding.
But do we study proliferation without a solid foundation? That is a question for Mahayana, with Thay's focus on the 4 Foundations Zandtao thinks Thay has answered that. Before following their quest Zandtao has to know that the teacher has a solid foundation or has to ensure that he has grounded himself in the foundations that are atammayata. The whole experience of threshold has been a shaking of those foundations, and Zandtao takes that shaking as a reminder to be aware of the foundations (Diamond sutra) when questing into the unknown.
In terms of the Heart sutra the question becomes “does it add to the foundations?” Undoubtedly crossing the threshold has given Zandtao an understanding of Prajna, an understanding of Prajna that can add to the foundations. Now that the Diamond sutra has made the need clearer questing into the unknown has a stronger base - the foundations of mindfulness that lead to atammayata. Does the Heart sutra add to “What the Buddha Gautama Taught”? Zandtao cannot answer that but studying the Heart sutra, studying sunnata might add to atammayata. Might is the sword in the quest into the unknown.
Does Zandtao step back from the threshold? In a way this is not possible – some understanding of Prajna has already happened. Zandtao does not know all that Buddhadasa taught, let alone “What the Buddha Taught” – the teachings of the Southern school, but Zandtao's path is his path. There is a need to do more to fortify the foundations of mindfulness, but for the moment going back to do something more than fortification – more than perfecting the vihara and building faith in the path is not the way forward.
Zandtao has to have full engagement with the foundations (not bypassing) but then perhaps his quest can go go beyond – gaate gaate paragaate, parasamgaate, bodhi svaha.
Thay talks of prajnaparamita, and Tinna Tinh chants that all Buddhas live(d) by prajnaparamita. So Thay will take Zandtao to prajnaparamita. But where is Zandtao now? Crossing the threshold has Zandtaio writing of Prajna and love-wisdom. Is this a form of perfecting wisdom?
Perfecting wisdom would not be against “What the Buddha Gautama Taught”. Having faith in different bodhisattvas, gurus or whoever might well be against the Kalama Sutta. In the Kalama Sutta the Buddha asks that we do not have faith in him but that we question until we understand, and have faith in that understanding. Zandtao has respect for such teachers but not faith, not even faith in Buddhadasa or Thay, but their teachings have been rafts in the past that have taken Zandtao to understanding. Zandtao trusts them. The Heart sutra has helped so trust is beginning, but there will not be faith in someone – Zandtao has faith in the path and the nearest faith in teachings is “What the Buddha Gautama Taught” via Buddhadasa. Zandtao will quest into prajnaparamita.
|
Zandtao Meditation page
Advice from Zandtaomed