The big conversation between Bodhidharma and Emperor Wu

I just came across this the other day.  Pay close attention to the interview between Bodhidharma and Emperor Wu.  It is quite different than the one we are all used to reading and much better, in my opinion. It doesn't leave us with a kind of nihilism that Bodhidharma taught "vast emptiness, nothing holy."  Far from it.  Enjoy!

 

How Under Emperor Wu of the Liang Dynasty Bodhidharma Crossed to China

 AGES AGO, in South India, there was a sage called preceptor Bodhidharma. Among his disciples was a monk called Buddhayasha. To Buddha-yasha, Bodhidharma said, "You must get to China at once and spread the doctrine." Obedient to his master's instructions, Yasha took ship and crossed to China. He tried to spread the doctrine, but there were thousands of monks in the country, each diligently at work. Of the persons who heard him, not one would accept Buddhist doctrine as Yasha taught it. In the end they drove Yasha out, banished him to the temple called Tung-lin-ssu on Lü-shan.

 Now at Lü-shan there was a supreme sage called great-teacher Yüan. Seeing that this Yasha had come because forced to, he asked a question before admitting him. "You have come from the west country because forced to," he said. "What sort of Buddhism can you be trying to propagate here that they should drive you out like this?" Whereupon, instead of answering in words, Yasha clenched his fist and opened it, then said, "It is all one." Great-teacher Yüan soon perceived that the fist when closed was the striving after temporal good, when open the striving after future good, and knew Yasha's meaning to be that the striving after temporal good and the striving after future good are one.

 Later on, Yasha died there. Great-teacher Bodhidharma over in India then knew without being told that his disciple Yasha had died in China and he himself took ship and crossed to China.

 This was in the reign of Emperor Wu of the Liang dynasty.

 Along about then, Emperor Wu had founded a large monastery, cast numerous Buddha images, erected a pagoda, copied numerous sutra scrolls, and was thinking to himself, "We have done meritorious works. Let us now show them to some competent monk and get his approval." He then made inquiry as to whether there was in the country at that time any wise and devout sage, and was informed that a sage had recently crossed from India. His name was Bodhidharma and he was wise, devout, a supreme sage.

 Emperor Wu was glad to hear this. "We shall summon this man," he thought, "show him the monastery, buddhas, and sutras, get his approval on these, and when he also hears of my noble acts he will judge my accomplishment even more meritorious."

 Accordingly he had preceptor Bodhidharma sent for, and in response to the summons the preceptor duly presented himself. Then after taking him through the monastery and showing him such things as hall, pagoda, buddhas, and sutras, Emperor Wu addressed this question to Bodhidharma: "When I build hall and pagoda, convert people, have sutra rolls copied, Buddha images cast, is there any merit in this?" To which great-teacher Bodhidharma replied, "No, this is not meritorious." Then Emperor Wu thought, "When the preceptor saw the layout of my temple, I certainly expected him to express approval, but if he so thoroughly disapproves, how unwise of him to say so!"

 And he asked another question, "In what sense, then, is it unmeritorious?" To which great-teacher Bodhidharma replied, "In such building of pagoda temples we may mean to be performing meritorious acts, but being a temporal matter it is in no true sense meritorious. True merit as such resides in the pure buddha, the seed of salvation within us which by inner revelation becomes true merit. Measured against that, these things can only be evaluated as transitory."

 Now when Emperor Wu heard this he was displeased. What use was such talk as this? "When we are convinced of having performed incomparably meritorious acts, it is presumption so to discredit them," he thought, and under a misapprehension his majesty banished the great teacher.

 When banished, the great teacher trudged with priest's staff for cane to a place called Liang mountain. There he met a man called meditation-master Hui-k'o. To this man he imparted the buddha doctrine complete. Later on, great-teacher Bodhidharma died in that place, and the monks his disciples laid Bodhidharma in a coffin and carried it to the grave.

 Twenty-seven days later, a man called Sung-yün, who had gone as imperial emissary, chanced to meet on the Onion range of Central Asia a foreign monk. On one foot he wore a straw sandal. His other foot was then bare. To Sung-yün the foreign monk said, "No doubt you know that the king of your country died today." Upon hearing this, Sung-yün got out paper and jotted down the day and the month. Some months later when Sung-yün returned to the imperial palace and inquired he was told of the emperor's passing. He thought of the date he had jotted down. It tallied exactly.

 Wondering who the foreign monk could have been who had informed him of this event on Onion range, he realized that it was preceptor Bodhidharma. Along with the palace officials and the monks who had been Bodhidharma's disciples he then went to Bodhidharma's grave to make sure. When they opened the coffin and looked, not a trace of Bodhidharma's body was visible. All that they found in the coffin was one straw sandal. In view of which fact, the foreign monk he had met on Onion range must certainly have been Bodhidharma returning to India in one straw sandal.

 It was by leaving one sandal behind that he made himself known to the people of China, as everybody knows. The whole country then knew that he had been a supreme sage, and no end of respect was paid him.

 That this preceptor Bodhidharma was the third son of the king of the great Brahman-land kingdom of South India is the tale that has been handed down. (S. W. Jones, trans., Ages Ago: Thirty-Seven Tales from the Konjaku Monogatari Collection [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959])

Comments

[Neti-Neti Yeti]

Methexis,

Thanks for the reminder of the seductive delusions of the samsaric dream.

I did read the Zennist's views on two nows, and while I am not so _foolish_ as to engage in a dharma duel with Zennist over such matters, I realize it somewhat differently.

I realize the mundane experience of time passing in samsaric existence is not Now, but merely an extension of consciousness which perceives conditioned reality, at the moment it can perceive, or at least become aware of through the consciousness, the _unconditioned_ reality of timeless time. In other words I do not realize time as a flow, except as all things temporal flow, as if through a dream, with neither beginning nor end but also without any ultimate reality.

Though I will be brief here, I have realized that time does not exist. I am hard pressed to say what it is we experience as time, however.

Time, as I understand it though David Bohm's theory of implicate order, is most likely an attribute of matter and not an external dimension or measurement. This goes beyond general relativity.

Why it matters is I think when we recognize that time is not present in Nirvana, and counts for nothing, at least not as a limiting factor, it extinguishes a great deal of samsaric delusion. Thus I realize time is a question, in regard to the Buddha dhatu, which does not fit the case.

To apply advaita vedanta, (and probably irritate everyone who has followed this far), I would say there are not two nows but that there is neither now nor not now.

[Neti-Neti Yeti]

MStrinado,

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. I am deeply inspired by both John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Avila, both of whom embody the spirit of renunciation and deep reflection in quietude which is intrinsic to the practice of Zen.

I also see close compatibility with the moral instruction of Buddhism and the benevolent teachings of Christ, and seek not to close myself off, in ignorance, from that which I may not fully understand.

I look forward to checking out your blog!

[MStrinado]

Neti-Neti Yeti:

I have been reading your recent posts with some levels of empathy. I am a retired Priest and am very familiar with the Carmelite Mysticism of John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila. You will find reference to both in my blog at:

unbornmind.com

You will also find in the archives there mention of my own spiritual progress over the years and how the zen mysticism of the Zennist (and his protege, Tozen) have deepened my own development.

As time progresses you may indeed reach a stage that the Zennist was referring to when one just remains "prior" to it all and focuses on That which Animates.

Best to you in your spiritual journey.

[Methexis]

Neti-Neti Yeti:

I'm in no position to comment on your practice since I'm a complete beginner, but there are possibly some malign influences in your expression to your otherwise praiseworthy efforts esp. your focus on "here-and-now awareness" - - samsaric awareness is just what it is. It's awareness within a dream. Which can be good, I think - there are many people who go at great lengths to effectuate so called "lucid dreams", which present-moment-awareness is.

Not sure if you read this 2 years old blog of the Zennist, I recommend it:

http://zennist.typepad.com/zenfiles/2011/09/not-one-but-two-nows-.html

[Neti-Neti Yeti]

Methexis,

I have heard it said that the reliance upon awareness in Zen, with its self discipline, is the external supporting condition (or object of faith), rather than on Buddha’s compassion, which seems to take the role of self awareness in Pure Land schools. I find it interesting that in some places where both Zen and Pure Land are practiced, the laity seems to prefer reliance upon Buddha’s compassion, whereas the monkhood is more disciplined and takes the path of Zen.

In my own practice, which is heavily influenced by Zen (but not exclusively), it has been hard for me to accept reliance upon Buddha’s compassion is sufficient. It is this reliance upon “gods” and ritual which has kept me at arms length from both Christianity and Hinduism, (though I have had some practice with both), at the same time I am drawn to effort-based realizations of Zen.

I do think a good dose of accepting Buddha’s compassion can be a salve for practice disrupted by setbacks or troubles along the way, but my inner guide continually brings me back to the heart of wisdom and the importance of deep study and continual effort to eliminate the defilements.

I have never really bought into the idea of reciting Buddha’s name as a method, but it is nice to have such practices in the spiritual medicine chest. The remedy I am looking at now is how the disciplined eradication of the kleshas, builds faith and virtue by clearing obscurations, while the continual disciplined practice of here-and-now awareness erases delusions and permits deep insight.

It would be interesting to hear some perspectives from those who are better informed than me.