The Great Zen Master Ta Hui, Chapter 11: Emptying

BELOVED OSHO,

STILLNESS AND COMMOTION

WORLDLY PASSIONS ARE LIKE A BLAZING FIRE: WHEN WILL THEY EVER END?

RIGHT IN THE MIDST OF THE HUBBUB, YOU MUSTN'T FORGET THE BUSINESS OF THE BAMBOO CHAIR AND REED CUSHION (MEDITATION). USUALLY (TO MEDITATE) YOU SET YOUR MIND ON A STILL CONCENTRATION POINT -- BUT YOU MUST BE ABLE TO USE IT RIGHT IN THE MIDST OF THE HUBBUB...

VIMALKIRTI SAID, "IT'S LIKE THIS: THE HIGH PLATEAU DOES NOT PRODUCE LOTUS FLOWERS; IT'S THE MIRE OF THE LOW SWAMPLANDS THAT PRODUCES THESE FLOWERS." THE OLD BARBARIAN (BUDDHA) SAID, "TRUE THUSNESS DOES NOT KEEP TO ITS OWN NATURE, BUT ACCORDING TO CIRCUMSTANCES BRINGS ABOUT ALL PHENOMENAL THINGS...."

DON'T CLING TO STILLNES (TO K'UNG HUI)

ONCE YOU HAVE ACHIEVED PEACEFUL STILLNESS OF BODY AND MIND, YOU MUST MAKE EARNEST EFFORT. DO NOT IMMEDIATELY SETTLE DOWN IN PEACEFUL STILLNESS. IN THE TEACHINGS THIS IS CALLED "THE DEEP PIT OF LIBERATION," MUCH TO BE FEARED. YOU MUST MAKE YOURSELF TURN FREELY LIKE A GOURD FLOATING ON THE WATER, INDEPENDENT AND FREE, NOT SUBJECT TO RESTRAINTS, ENTERING PURITY AND IMPURITY WITHOUT BEING OBSTRUCTED OR SINKING DOWN. ONLY THEN DO YOU HAVE A LITTLE FAMILIARITY WITH THE SCHOOL OF THE PATCHROBED MONKS. IF YOU JUST MANAGE TO CRADLE THE UNCRYING CHILD IN YOUR ARMS, WHAT'S THE USE?

DON'T PRAY FOR RELIEF

LIN CHI SAID, "IF YOU CAN PUT TO REST THE MIND THAT FRANTICALLY SEEKS FROM MOMENT TO MOMENT, YOU WILL BE NO DIFFERENT FROM OLD SHAKYAMUNI BUDDHA."

HE WASN'T FOOLING PEOPLE. EVEN BODHISATTVAS OF THE SEVENTH STAGE SEEK BUDDHA-KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT THEIR MINDS BEING SATISFIED: THEREFORE IT IS CALLED "AFFLICTION." REALLY THERE'S NO WAY TO MANAGE: IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO APPLY THE SLIGHTEST EXTERNAL MEASURE.

SEVERAL YEARS AGO THERE WAS A CERTAIN LAYMAN, HSU, WHO WAS ABLE TO FIND AN OPENING; HE SENT ME A LETTER, EXPRESSING HIS UNDERSTANDING, THAT SAID, "EMPTY AND OPEN IN MY DAILY ACTIVITIES, THERE'S NOT A SINGLE THING OPPOSING ME; FINALLY I REALIZE THAT ALL THINGS IN THE THREE WORLDS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY NONEXISTENT. TRULY THIS IS PEACE AND HAPPINESS, JOYFUL LIVELINESS, HAVING CAST IT ALL AWAY." ACCORDINGLY I INSTRUCTED HIM WITH A VERSE:

DON'T BE FOND OF PURITY: PURITY MAKES PEOPLE WEARY. DON'T BE FOND OF JOYFUL LIVELINESS: JOYFUL LIVELINESS MAKES PEOPLE CRAZY. AS WATER CONFORMS TO THE VESSEL, IT ACCORDINGLY BECOMES SQUARE OR ROUND, SHORT OR LONG. AS FOR CASTING AWAY OR NOT CASTING AWAY, PLEASE THINK IT OVER MORE CAREFULLY. THE THREE WORLDS AND MYRIAD THINGS ARE NO REFUGE -- WHERE IS THERE ANY HOME?

IF YOU ARE JUST THUS, THIS IS A GREAT CONTRADICTION. THIS IS TO INFORM LAYMAN HSU THAT HIS OWN KIN ARE CREATING DISASTER. OPEN WIDE THE EYE OF THE THOUSAND SAGES, AND DO NOT KEEP PRAYING FOR RELIEF.

EMPTYING MIND AND OBJECTS

IN THE DAILY ACTIVITIES OF A STUDENT OF THE PATH, TO EMPTY OBJECTS IS EASY BUT TO EMPTY MIND IS HARD. IF OBJECTS ARE EMPTY BUT MIND IS NOT EMPTY, MIND WILL BE OVERCOME BY OBJECTS.

JUST EMPTY THE MIND, AND OBJECTS WILL BE EMPTY OF THEMSELVES. IF THE MIND IS ALREADY EMPTIED, BUT THEN YOU AROUSE A SECOND THOUGHT WISHING TO EMPTY ITS OBJECTS, THIS MEANS THAT THIS MIND IS NOT YET EMPTY AND IS AGAIN CARRIED AWAY BY OBJECTS. IF THIS SICKNESS IS NOT DONE AWAY WITH, THERE IS NO WAY TO GET OUT OF BIRTH AND DEATH.

HAVEN'T YOU SEEN THE VERSE WHICH LAYMAN P'ANG PRESENTED TO MA TSU?

IN THE TEN DIRECTIONS, THE SAME CONGREGATION: EACH AND EVERY ONE STUDIES NON-DOING. THIS IS THE PLACE WHERE BUDDHAS ARE CHOSEN: MINDS EMPTY, THEY RETURN SUCCESSFUL.

Ta Hui is constantly in a dilemma. His dilemma is: he wants to be recognized as an enlightened man, but this is only his ambition, his greed; it is not his experience.

Whenever he quotes some enlightened person, the quotation has great significance. But when he himself comments on the quotation, those commentaries are just crap. He uses all great words, but the words coming from an intellectual don't carry the meaning -- the same meaning -- as they carry when coming out of an enlightened being. And you will see his unconscious continually making sarcastic remarks, sometimes so ugly and condemnable that one cannot think that this man has even begun to grasp the meaning of enlightenment.

I will show you how fast asleep the man is -- he is talking in his sleep. He is clever and cunning. He can manage to befool people who are not enlightened because they don't have anything to compare his statements with. They don't have any of their own experience as a criterion to decide whether what he is saying is worth saying, or if he is just making much fuss about nothing.

The first sutra:

WORLDLY PASSIONS ARE LIKE A BLAZING FIRE; WHEN WILL THEY EVER END?

Now this is from a man who, in his previous sutras, has said that everything is illusory -- the world is illusory, the senses are illusory, the mind is illusory, even the Buddha is illusory!

If everything is illusory, then from where come these worldly passions which are like a blazing fire? They are not illusory. He has forgotten, because it was not his own understanding. He simply quoted. But the reality is, he knows his passions are like a blazing fire; he has not gone beyond passions.

Talking about even Buddha as an illusion is not only stupid, it is immensely harmful. People who will read it, if they see that even Buddha is illusory, enlightenment is illusory, will wonder then what is the point of unnecessarily running from one illusion to another illusion?

One illusion cannot be better than another illusion. Illusions are simply illusions; there is no qualitative difference.

RIGHT IN THE MIDST OF THE HUBBUB, YOU MUST NOT FORGET THE BUSINESS OF THE BAMBOO CHAIR AND REED CUSHION.

He cannot say directly, "Don't forget meditation." The word `meditation' somehow hurts all intellectuals, because it is something beyond the grasp of the intellect. They want to be on the top, and suddenly they feel that there is something more beyond their grasp. So rather than simply using the word `meditation', he says, "Don't forget the business of the bamboo chair and reed cushion."

He may think he is being very clever, but it is just his unconscious showing itself -- its antagonism for meditation. He is not a man of meditation at all.

USUALLY (TO MEDITATE) YOU SET YOUR MIND ON A STILL CONCENTRATION POINT...

That is absolutely wrong! That's why I say the man is not a man of meditation.

Concentration is not meditation; concentration is a faculty of the mind. Mind concentrates; meditation is the absence of mind. Mind cannot do anything about meditation. It simply does not know meditation, and there is no intrinsic possibility for the mind ever to come in contact with meditation. Just as I said before, darkness cannot come in contact with light because darkness is only an absence -- so is the mind.

Mind is the absence of meditation.

The moment meditation arises in you, mind is found nowhere.

A Sufi mystic, Junnaid, who himself finally became a great master, was with his old master. One day, early in the morning, the master said, "Just look outside to see if it is still dark."

So Junnaid said, "Okay," and he took the lamp.

He was going out when the master said, "Wait! If you take the lamp with you, how are you going to find out whether it is dark or not? Leave the lamp here."

Junnaid was only in his disciplehood. He said, "If you say so I will leave it, but without a lamp how can I see whether it is dark or not? A little light is needed to see anything." That is true about everything else, but not about darkness. If you go with a lamp into the house searching for darkness, you will not find it. The same is true about mind and meditation.

Ta Hui thinks meditation is to set your mind on a still concentration point. A concentration point is within the capacity of mind; it has its utility. The whole of scientific work comes out of concentration of the mind, focusing the mind, not allowing it to move anywhere, staying only on a single point.

In the ancient story of Mahabharata -- the great Indian war that happened five thousand years ago -- there was a famous archer, Dronacharya. All the princes used to come to learn archery from him. His most intimate disciple was Arjuna, whose concentration was the reason for this intimacy, because archery depends on concentration.

One day Dronacharya was examining his disciples. He asked one disciple, Yudhishthira, Arjuna's eldest brother... Dronacharya had hung a dead bird on a tree, and the dead bird's right eye was the target. He told Yudhishthira -- he was the first, being the eldest -- "Take the bow and the arrow, but before you shoot, I have to ask you something."

He became ready with his bow and arrow, and Dronacharya asked him, "What are you seeing?"

He said, "I see everything -- all the trees, all the birds."

The second man was called in and asked, "What are you seeing?"

He said, "I can see only the bird."

The third man was Arjuna. Dronacharya asked him, "What are you seeing?"

Arjuna said, "Only the right eye of the bird."

Then Dronacharya told all three to shoot their arrows. Yudhishthira's arrow went so far off... you cannot even say it missed -- the distance between his arrow and the bird was so big. The second man's was a little closer, but still did not reach the right eye -- it hit the bird. But Arjuna's arrow hit exactly the right eye of the bird. And the right eye of the bird on a faraway tree is such a small spot...

But Dronacharya said, "Just your answers had given me a sense of who was going to hit the target. If you see so many trees, you are not focused. If you see only the bird you are more focused, but still you are not focused on the right eye. The whole bird is a big thing in comparison to the right eye. But when Arjuna said, `I can't see anything else except the right eye,' then it was certain that his arrow was going to reach the target."

In science, in archery, in other arts, concentration may be of great use -- but it is not meditation. And this is the point that justifies my continuous insistence that Ta Hui is an intellectual: he has no idea even what meditation is.

Meditation is going beyond the mind. It has nothing to do with the mind -- except going beyond it. It is not a faculty of the mind, it is transcendental to mind. When you can see without the mind in between you and existence, you are in meditation. It is not concentration. It is utterly silent. It is not focusing... it is absolutely unfocused awareness.

BUT YOU MUST BE ABLE TO USE IT RIGHT IN THE MIDST OF THE HUBBUB.

This is the problem with the man -- he has collected from every source, without knowing whether those statements connect with each other or not.

Concentration cannot be practiced in the midst of the hubbub; concentration needs a space where you are not disturbed by anything. That's why the people who believe in concentration have left the world and gone to the mountains, to the caves, to the desert, where there is nothing to distract them. They can just put their minds on Jesus Christ or Gautam Buddha or Krishna... and there is nothing else.

The desert has been one of the most practical places for concentration; it is even better than the mountains, because in the mountains there is so much to see -- the birds are there, the animals are there, the trees are there, beautiful peaks with snow are there -- there are many possibilities for distraction. But in a desert, as far as you can see there is only desert, and desert...

But meditation can be possible even in the marketplace, because it does not have to concentrate on anything. Meditation cannot be disturbed, it is all-inclusive. Concentration is exclusive; it excludes everything and just keeps the mind on one point.

Meditation is all-inclusive. The car passes... the mind in meditation is fully aware of the horn. The birds start singing... the mind is fully aware of their singing. There is no question of distraction; nothing distracts. Everything -- the mind is no longer there -- is simply watched. You are only aware that there is a horn, a car is passing by -- but it is not a distraction.

Distraction comes only when you are trying to concentrate, then anything -- a small ant crawling up your leg -- will be enough to distract you. But when you are in meditation, you simply know that the ant is crawling up your leg. If you like it, you allow it; if you don't like it, you throw it away. But there is no distraction -- your silence remains unscratched. How can the noises on the street distract you? You simply listen to them -- they don't make any impact on you. They come and go, and you remain just a witness.

Meditation is possible in the hubbub of a marketplace... Ta Hui has heard some man of meditation talking, but he has never meditated himself; all that he knows is concentration of the mind.

VIMALKIRTI SAID, "IT IS LIKE THIS: THE HIGH PLATEAU DOES NOT PRODUCE LOTUS FLOWERS; IT IS THE MIRE OF THE LOW SWAMPLANDS THAT PRODUCES THESE FLOWERS."

He is quoting Vimalkirti, but he is not commenting on it. He is just throwing names in to decorate his sutras. I don't think he has understood what Vimalkirti means.

Vimalkirti was one of the strangest people who came in contact with Gautam Buddha. He never became a sannyasin -- he remained a layman -- but even Gautam Buddha respected him. He used to come to listen to Gautam Buddha, and he was meditating, but he could not see that there was any need to renounce the world and become a sannyasin and a beggar. He was such a genius that he was the first layman to become enlightened. The first sannyasin to become enlightened was Manjushri, and the first layman to become enlightened was Vimalkirti.

But Vimalkirti was a very strange person. For a few days he had not come, and Buddha was concerned... is he sick, or is there some trouble? -- why is he not coming? So he asked that one of his disciples should offer to go to Vimalkirti -- he lived in the city -- to enquire about his health and why he is not coming.

But out of ten thousand sannyasins, nobody wanted to go, for the simple reason that even to say hello to Vimalkirti was dangerous! He would make it a point of great discussion -- "To whom are you saying hello? Are you certain I am not a dream? Can you give me any evidence that I am not a dream? If you see me in a dream, will you recognize that it is a dream and not reality?"

He used to put everybody in such a corner -- on any point. If you didn't say anything and you simply tried to avoid him, he would say, "Hey, where are you going? Is there any place to go? The truth is right here now. Where are you going?" He had tortured almost everybody.

Finally one disciple said, "I will go. Whatever he does I will take it easy, but he has to be asked after." When the disciple went he said, "Gautam Buddha has sent me to enquire about your health. As I came here, just outside your house, your family said that you are sick."

Rather than answering him, the sick Vimalkirti said, "Sick? About whom are you talking? I don't exist at all, how can I be sick? To be sick you first have to exist -- what do you think? I have disappeared long ago in my meditations. So just go back and tell Gautam Buddha, `Vimalkirti is no more -- there is no question of sickness or health.'"

The disciple was very much disturbed, because if he tells Gautam Buddha that Vimalkirti is no more, he will think that perhaps he has died. So he told Vimalkirti, "This statement can be misunderstood. If I say simply that Vimalkirti is no more, the obvious meaning will be that Vimalkirti is dead."

He said, "That's the right meaning! Vimalkirti is dead. It was a phony name which disappeared with meditation. When I was born I was not Vimalkirti, and when I was reborn in meditation I again became nameless, formless -- it is perfectly right. You can even say that Vimalkirti is dead."

The disciple said, "That is too much, because you are alive and I will be in trouble. Tomorrow you may appear before Buddha, and he will ask me, `What were you saying?'"

And in this way a whole sutra, Vimalkirti's Hridaya Sutra, has developed between the disciple and Vimalkirti. He is so clear that you cannot catch hold of him, you cannot grasp him. He is so vast that whatever you say, you are immediately caught.

Quoting from Vimalkirti is just to decorate Ta Hui's sutras, but he does not comment on it. Perhaps he does not understand it either.

VIMALKIRTI SAID, "IT IS LIKE THIS: THE HIGH PLATEAU DOES NOT PRODUCE LOTUS FLOWERS; IT IS THE MIRE OF THE LOW SWAMPLANDS THAT PRODUCES THESE FLOWERS."

The lotus comes out of mud, out of swamplands. It is perhaps the best flower -- the biggest flower, the most fragrant and the most delicate. No other flower can be compared with it, yet it is born out of mud.

Vimalkirti is saying, "Don't be worried about man's ignorance, his anger, his greed, his lust, his desire for power and for money, his attachment to things, his aggressiveness, his violence... Don't be worried -- this is the mud out of which the lotus of enlightenment arises. Accept it all, because the lotus flower cannot be born on high land, on a plateau. So you should be grateful to all your ignorance, all your anger, all your greed, your sex..."

Whatever the religions have been condemning, Vimalkirti is saying be grateful to it because it is only out of this that the buddha is born, that the lotus flower comes out. But Ta Hui does not make any comment on it. This is strange. If you are not going to make any comment, then there is no need to quote. On the contrary, he goes on speaking in a very ugly way. THE OLD BARBARIAN... he calls Gautam Buddha "the old barbarian."

The Chinese, just like everybody else, think that they are the most cultured people. When Marco Polo reached China, he wrote in his diary:

"These people cannot be thought of as human beings. They look like human beings but they are a lower species. They eat snakes, they eat dogs, there is nothing that they will leave; they eat everything! They look very strange, and their ideas are very strange. With high cheekbones they are ugly, but they think high cheekbones are immensely beautiful. They have only a few hairs in their beards, you can count them -- at the most twelve! Their mustaches also have very few hairs, which can be counted on the fingers. Very strange people! It seems they are on the way to becoming human beings."

The emperor of China, who invited Marco Polo to his court, told his historian to write about him, "We have heard that these people believe that man has come from the monkeys. We could not believe it because we had not seen these people" -- Marco Polo was the first westerner to visit China. The emperor continued, "But they are perfectly right! As far as they are concerned, monkeys are their forefathers. They look like monkeys."

But this is the situation everywhere. Indians think they are the purest Aryans, the Germans think they are the purest Aryans. The word arya is Sanskrit -- it means `the highest'. Everybody thinks... But to use the word `barbarian' for Gautam Buddha -- and that, too, by a man who pretends to be his disciple -- is simply inconceivable. If Gautam Buddha is a barbarian, then in the whole world nobody has ever been a cultured man.

Even now Buddha is the most cultured man, the most graceful. His beauty is such that Friedrich Nietzsche condemned him because of his grace and his beauty. He looked feminine to Nietzsche, because his idea of a real man was to be strong and to be made of steel... grace, beauty? -- those are feminine qualities.

Nietzsche condemned Gautam Buddha: "I cannot believe in his teachings. They are dangerous, they will turn the whole world into a feminine world. I want man to keep his manhood and not to be impressed by people like Gautam Buddha."

Nietzsche loved the warrior -- that was his ideal for every man -- as sharp as the blade of the sword, as hard as steel, neither worried about killing, nor worried about being killed; these are just manly games.

Gautam Buddha is teaching nonviolence -- don't kill anybody. He is teaching compassion, he is teaching love, and he is teaching meditation -- which will make you graceful, loving, compassionate, but your manhood will disappear. You may become a roseflower, but you will not be a sword.

Friedrich Nietzsche may be wrong but his esteem is right. He cannot call Gautam Buddha a barbarian. Perhaps there is no other man who was so cultured as Gautam Buddha. But Ta Hui is calling him, "the old barbarian."

BUDDHA SAID, "TRUE THUSNESS DOES NOT KEEP TO ITS OWN NATURE, BUT ACCORDING TO CIRCUMSTANCES BRINGS ABOUT ALL PHENOMENAL THINGS."

The quotation is right. Buddha is saying true thusness is always ready to change with the circumstances. It has no resistance, because resistance means ego, resistance means, "I have my own will. I will go on my path."

To accept life in its totality, as it is, means to relax and let life take charge of you; then wherever it takes you, go with it. This is his most fundamental teaching of suchness or thusness.

Such a man is always at peace. Whatever happens makes no problem for him; he simply goes with it with total willingness. Not only does he have no resistance, on the other hand he welcomes life in whatever form it comes. He welcomes death -- even death cannot disturb him. There is nothing that can disturb him because he goes with everything, allows it...

He is just like a leaf dropping from the tree. If the wind takes it up, it goes up; if the wind takes it to the north, it goes to the north; if the wind takes it to the south, it goes to the south; if the wind drops it on the ground, it rests on the ground. It does not say to the wind, "This is very contradictory -- you just started going north, and now you have started going south. I don't want to go south -- I am destined for the north." No, the leaf has no destination of its own.

Existence has its own destination, and the man of meditation makes existence's destination his own destination. He makes no separation at all. If existence feels it is time for death, then it is time for death. His ability to accept is total. Such a man cannot be in pain, in agony, in misery, in anguish -- he has cut the very root of all these things.

ONCE YOU HAVE ACHIEVED PEACEFUL STILLNESS OF BODY AND MIND, YOU MUST MAKE EARNEST EFFORT.

Now these are Ta Hui's words. Whenever he quotes, that quotation is great. But whenever he comes to his own understanding, he falls very low. He says, "Once you have achieved peaceful stillness of body and mind..."

In the first place, a man like Gautam Buddha will not use the word `achievement', because it is not an achievement -- it is only a discovery. Secondly, he will not say "peaceful stillness of body and mind." He will say "transcendence of body and mind" -- only then can you be still. Body and mind cannot be still by their very nature. Thirdly, he says, "You must make earnest effort." The meditator does not make any effort.

The whole idea of Gautam Buddha about meditation is so unique and so tremendously beautiful that it has been a problem for other religions to understand it -- because every religion thinks earnest effort is needed. But Gautam Buddha's idea is beautifully represented by Basho's haiku: "Sitting silently, doing nothing... the spring comes and the grass grows by itself." There is no question of any effort; you are simply sitting, doing nothing...

If you want to do something, effort is needed. But if you are in a state of non-doing, no effort is needed... and if, for non-doing, effort is needed, what kind of non-doing will it be? Effort is doing, and out of doing, you cannot create non-doing. You have to renounce doing.

Sitting silently, doing nothing... the spring comes. It is not your effort that brings the spring; it comes, in its turn. It has always been coming. And when the spring comes, you don't have to pull the grass and make earnest effort so that it grows -- it grows on its own accord. The grass grows by itself...

Nobody except Buddha has come to this tremendous discovery, that meditation is a very simple phenomenon. You just relax -- but not the American way! I cannot forgive a man who has written a book, YOU MUST RELAX! That `must' destroys the whole idea of relaxation, but that is the American idea -- "you must relax." And the book has sold very well, because everybody wants to relax. It is well-written, but the person does not know anything about relaxation. It cannot be a must.

Relaxation has to be a very simple understanding... no effort, no doing -- you just sit silently, and let your body relax. There is nowhere to go, nothing to do, nothing to achieve, so there is no point in being tense -- because you have it already within you. Relaxation becomes possible without any effort. You are sitting where you want to reach, so what is the point of making any effort? You have always been in the space where you want to be, you just have not looked inwards. No achievement, no longing, no desire, nowhere else to go... relaxation comes on its own.

A relaxation which has been managed is not much of a relaxation. There is bound to be a subtle tension around it -- you are holding it. You can sit silently, still, but deep down you are very tense, you are holding yourself still -- no movement. This is not stillness, this is fake. Stillness should be natural. And how can it be natural?

Buddha's whole philosophy gives you the right situation in which it happens on its own accord. There is nothing to achieve -- there is no God, there is no heaven, there is no hell. All that you need is already given to you, you have it within you. You are not a sinner that has to pray continuously to get rid of your sins. You are as pure as Buddha himself. The only difference -- and that does not make you inferior in any way -- is that you are not aware of it.

You have the Kohinoor -- the most precious diamond -- within you, but you are not aware of it. Buddha is aware of it.

So all that needs to happen is sitting silently, waiting for the spring, waiting for the right moment... when your relaxation comes to its highest peak, when your silence becomes absolute, the spring has come. And "the grass grows by itself" is only a symbol. It is a symbol that you, your potential, starts growing on its own, spontaneously. It is a natural phenomenon, it is an intrinsic capacity -- you don't have to do anything.

So when Ta Hui says you must make earnest effort, he misses completely the whole new message of Gautam Buddha.

DO NOT IMMEDIATELY SETTLE DOWN IN PEACEFUL STILLNESS. IN THE TEACHINGS THIS IS CALLED "THE DEEP PIT OF LIBERATION."

Whenever he quotes, because the quotation is not his, he is right. But whenever he says anything of his own, he is wrong. Now this is certainly right -- it is a quotation.

"The deep pit of liberation" -- there is a danger for all seekers, for all people of the path, that you may settle for a small treasure. Just a little silence, a little relaxation, a little peace, and you may think you have come home. This they call the "deep pit of liberation." You have settled long before you have blossomed.

So one has to be alert not to settle anywhere. Just go on growing -- allow your potential to grow. Don't start feeling, "I have come, I have arrived." Your potential is immense, and your treasure is incalculable.

So go on and on and on... and you will find more and more peace, more profound spaces, more juicy experiences. Your desert-like life you will find slowly turning into a green beautiful garden. You will find many, many flowers blossoming within you. Just go on... there is no end to your growth.

One never comes to the end of one's growth. It is always coming closer -- but just coming closer. You cannot come to the end of the road because existence is eternal, and you are one with existence. Your journey, your pilgrimage, is also to be eternal.

YOU MUST MAKE YOURSELF TURN FREELY -- now these are Ta Hui's words -- LIKE A GOURD FLOATING ON THE WATER, INDEPENDENT AND FREE...

The gourd is not independent and is not free! The gourd cannot go against the current -- how can it go? It is simply moving with the current. Wherever the river is going, it is going -- what kind of independence is this? The gourd wants to stop at some place; it cannot, because the river is continuously moving. What kind of freedom is this?

No, this example is absolutely wrong. You can say the gourd is relaxed, you can say the gourd is no longer resistant, you can say the gourd has total acceptance -- wherever the river takes it. But you cannot say that it is independent and free. That would be an absolutely absurd idea. What independence can it have? It cannot go against the current, it cannot stop when it wants... If the river moves to the south, it has to move to the south; it cannot say, "No, I don't want to go south." It is neither free nor independent.

He must have heard about the gourd... that a man should relax just like a gourd in the river. It is immensely graceful because there is no resistance, no tension, no fight. In fact, it has become almost one with the river. It has no ideas different from the river, it has no intentions different from the river, it has nothing of what you call `will power'. It has surrendered completely to the river. It has great peace and silence, acceptance, thusness.

This example of the gourd has been used by Buddha for thusness, for suchness, for tathata. But it is not used for freedom and independence.

... NOT SUBJECT TO RESTRAINTS, ENTERING PURITY AND IMPURITY WITHOUT BEING OBSTRUCTED OR SINKING DOWN.

But this does not show its independence! When the river moves into impurity, the gourd has to move in impurity. When the river moves in pure waters, the gourd has to move in pure waters.

It simply shows that Ta Hui has not understood the idea of surrendering yourself to nature totally. In that surrender, you have disappeared -- who is going to be independent, and who is going to be free? That does not mean that you have become a slave, and that does not mean that you have become dependent. These are the subtleties of the experience of surrender.

You have become one with existence. You are neither dependent nor independent -- you are no more. And YOU have been the problem... so now, because you are no more, there is no problem.

ONLY THEN DO YOU HAVE A LITTLE FAMILIARITY WITH THE SCHOOL OF THE PATCHROBED MONKS.

No, he is not right.

And again he is using sarcastic remarks... patchrobed monks. Buddha used to say to his disciples, "People throw out clothes when they are useless or rotten or have been used too much. Collect those pieces of cloth and make patchrobes; just put those pieces of cloth together and make a robe. That way you will not be a burden on people for your robes."

It was a great idea in itself. Buddha's whole effort was that his people should not be a burden and parasite on poor people, so he had taken every care. "You should not take your food from one house, you should take your food from five houses -- just a small piece from one house, another small piece from another house -- so you are not a burden.

"You should not remain longer than three days in one place; you should not ask for food from the same house while you are three days in the town; and you should collect thrown-away robes, clothes. And when the days of rain come, and for four months you cannot move and you have to stay in one place, then make patchrobes for yourself, for other sannyasins. You have enough time. So for clothes you are not dependent at all and for food your burden is negligible."

In fact, everybody enjoyed giving some food. Even in the poorest family, if a guest suddenly comes he can be accommodated. And he was not being dependent on one family but five families, and only one meal a day. So Buddha had minimized as much as possible the burden on the people, and people rejoiced without any reluctance. They wanted to share something with the monks, and this much they could manage.

Sometimes people used to give clothes to the monks, and Buddha had said that, "If somebody gives you a cloth you should cut it in pieces, because it should not be that some monks are using patchrobes and some monks are using clothes which are not patched. That will create unnecessary competitiveness."

He was very careful to create a commune of equals, without any conflict -- and he succeeded in it. There was no conflict. Even the newest clothes were cut down and patched again, so they looked the same as anybody else's. But Ta Hui's reference to the school of the `patchrobed' is sarcastic, it is not respectful.

IF YOU JUST MANAGE TO CRADLE THE UNCRYING CHILD IN YOUR ARMS, WHAT IS THE USE?

He is saying that just being silent -- a small silence, a small peace -- is not much use. It is just like cradling the uncrying child in your arms -- what is the use? About that he is right.

You should go to the profoundest ecstasy. Silence is only the beginning. Stillness is only the beginning, not the end.

LIN CHI SAID, "IF YOU CAN PUT TO REST THE MIND THAT FRANTICALLY SEEKS FROM MOMENT TO MOMENT, YOU WILL BE NO DIFFERENT FROM OLD SHAKYAMUNI BUDDHA." HE WAS NOT FOOLING PEOPLE.

Lin Chi's statement is clear: If you can put to rest the mind that frantically seeks from moment to moment, you will be no different from old Shakyamuni Buddha.

The only difference between you and the awakened one is that you go on being dominated by the frantic mind, which is continuously restless. Buddha has overcome it; he has put his mind to rest. This is the only difference.

But Lin Chi is not being sarcastic -- he was a great master. He is saying, "the old Shakyamuni Buddha" -- shakya is his clan; hence he is called shakyamuni, the man from the Shakya clan who became utterly silent.

In fact, Ta Hui needed a master like Lin Chi. He says that Lin Chi was not fooling people. Why is he saying that? Perhaps unconsciously he knows that he is fooling people. He needed a man like Lin Chi. Lin Chi was the most strange master. I have told you about him... he used to hit people, he used to beat his disciples, for no reason at all. And once he threw a disciple from the window of a two story building and then jumped on top of him. Sitting on his chest he asked him, "Got it?" And the strangest thing is that the disciple said, "Yes, sir!" because this was so surprising...

Lin Chi had been beating him -- to that he had become accustomed. He knew that whenever he goes, he will get a good beating. But even to be beaten by a man like Lin Chi... he was so beautiful, so loving. He was beating out of love; there was no anger in it. He was trying in every way to wake him up.

But beating had become known and familiar. That's why Lin Chi had to throw him out of the window -- to shock him completely: "This is going too far!" Then when he saw Lin Chi coming behind him, his mind must have stopped! And sitting on his chest, Lin Chi asked "Got it?"

In that moment the disciple must have been so quiet... the mind cannot figure out what is happening, so the mind has to be at rest in such a moment. And the master's eyes, and his grace, and his words, "Got it?" The answer came not from his mind, but from his very being. He said, "Yes, sir."

Ta Hui needed a man like Lin Chi. Perhaps then he may have come to a state of no-mind, even for a single moment. And that would have changed his whole approach from intellectual to meditative.

EVEN BODHISATTVAS OF THE SEVENTH STAGE SEEK BUDDHA-KNOWLEDGE WITHOUT THEIR MINDS BEING SATISFIED: THEREFORE IT IS CALLED "AFFLICTION." REALLY THERE IS NO WAY TO MANAGE: IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO APPLY THE SLIGHTEST EXTERNAL MEASURE.

Again it is a quotation, and the quotation is right: Really there is no way to manage, because you cannot do anything for realization -- so naturally, there is no way to manage.

Or in other words: if you drop managing, if you drop doing, if you drop effort, it happens on its own accord. But you cannot manage it, you cannot manage to be a buddha. If you manage to be a buddha it will only be a hypocrisy; you will be only an actor and nothing else.

SEVERAL YEARS AGO THERE WAS A CERTAIN LAYMAN, HSU, WHO WAS ABLE TO FIND AN OPENING; HE SENT ME A LETTER EXPRESSING HIS UNDERSTANDING, THAT SAID...

Here you will see that an ordinary layman has come to a great understanding of truth. The answer that Ta Hui sends him is so ordinary and irrelevant that it will make it clear to you that there is no question of comparing him with any Zen master. He is not even capable of understanding the experience that has happened to a layman, an ordinary man, and the way that man has expressed it.

Layman Hsu sent Ta Hui a letter, and said in the letter,

"EMPTY AND OPEN IN MY DAILY ACTIVITIES, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE THING OPPOSING ME; FINALLY I REALIZE THAT ALL THINGS IN THE THREE WORLDS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY NONEXISTENT. TRULY THIS IS PEACE AND HAPPINESS, JOYFUL LIVELINESS, HAVING CAST IT ALL AWAY." ACCORDINGLY I INSTRUCTED HIM WITH A VERSE.

Hsu does not need any instruction from Ta Hui, but Ta Hui is pretending to be a great teacher.

Hsu has expressed his experience, which is perfectly in tune with Gautam Buddha and the Zen masters. The instruction that Ta Hui has sent is absolutely irrelevant. First he says, don't be fond of purity. Now in the letter the poor man has not said anything about purity! Don't be fond of purity: purity makes people weary. don't be fond of joyful liveliness... Hsu has not said anything about that. He has simply said that a joyful liveliness has happened to him; he has not said that he is fond of it.

Joyful liveliness makes people crazy. Ta Hui's instruction is dangerous... because he was thought to be a great Zen master, accepted by the emperor. The poor man must have been disturbed by the instruction he was sent.

AS WATER CONFORMS TO THE VESSEL, IT ACCORDINGLY BECOMES SQUARE OR ROUND, SHORT OR LONG. AS FOR CASTING AWAY OR NOT CASTING AWAY, PLEASE THINK IT OVER MORE CAREFULLY.

He does not need the word `think'.

THE THREE WORLDS AND MYRIAD THINGS ARE NO REFUGE -- WHERE IS THERE ANY HOME?

Hsu has not talked about all these things in which Hui is instructing him.

IF YOU ARE JUST THUS, THIS IS A GREAT CONTRADICTION. THIS IS TO INFORM LAYMAN HSU THAT HIS OWN KIN ARE CREATING DISASTER -- OPEN WIDE THE EYE OF THE THOUSAND SAGES, AND DO NOT KEEP PRAYING FOR RELIEF.

He is not praying for relief, he is not disturbed by anything, he is not in any contradiction, he is not seeking any refuge...! I would like to read Hsu's words again, so you can see how irrelevant is the instruction. But just to be the teacher, Ta Hui has to say something...

Ta Hui has not even understood the layman's statement: "Empty and open in my daily activities, there is not a single thing opposing me." When you are empty and open, how can anything oppose you? Opposition comes when you are there with a will, with a certain ego, with a certain desire -- then there is opposition. But if you are empty and open, naturally there is no opposition possible.

"FINALLY I REALIZE THAT ALL THINGS IN THE THREE WORLDS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY NONEXISTENT."

It has to be understood what, in the heritage of Gautam Buddha, the word `nonexistent' means. It simply means nothing is stable, everything is changing.

Buddha's definition of the existent is "that which always remains the same." There is only one thing that is existent, and that is the witnessing self, the witnessing consciousness. It remains always the same... past, present, future, from eternity to eternity, it is the same. This is the only existent thing. Everything else changes; every moment it is changing, and that which is changing is nonexistent. It does not mean that it is not there; it simply means that while you are seeing it, it is already changing. While you are listening to me, you are already changing -- your death is coming closer.

This world is ephemeral. The word `nonexistent' in Buddha's philosophy simply means "that which is ephemeral, that which goes on changing" -- you cannot rely on it. The only thing you can rely on is your witnessing consciousness. It never changes. It is the very center of the cyclone. But about this, in his great instruction, Ta Hui does not say anything.

"TRULY THIS IS PEACE AND HAPPINESS, JOYFUL LIVELINESS. HAVING CAST IT ALL AWAY."

Hsu is not saying, "I am fond of these things" -- that, "I desire them." He is saying, "I have found them, they are there." And Ta Hui's instruction is absolutely out of place: don't be fond of purity -- I am amazed that he cannot see that what he is saying has no reference to the layman's letter --

PURITY MAKES PEOPLE WEARY. DON'T BE FOND OF JOYFUL LIVELINESS: JOYFUL LIVELINESS MAKES PEOPLE CRAZY. AS WATER CONFORMS TO THE VESSEL, IT ACCORDINGLY BECOMES SQUARE OR ROUND, SHORT OR LONG. AS FOR CASTING AWAY OR NOT CASTING AWAY, PLEASE THINK IT OVER MORE CAREFULLY.

Thinking is a very low activity; it is of the mind. Meditation is the highest within you; it is beyond mind. The layman has touched something beyond mind, and Ta Hui is dragging him down by saying, please think it over more carefully. The three worlds and myriad things are no refuge -- where is there any home? But the poor fellow has not asked about the home or any refuge.

IF YOU ARE JUST THUS, THIS IS A GREAT CONTRADICTION.

Hsu has not said that he is just thus! He is simply saying that this is his awareness, his consciousness. He can see it, he is aware of his emptiness, his openness. And he has found that since the moment he became empty and open, not a single thing opposes him.

"And as I have entered into this emptiness and openness, I realized that all things in the three worlds are fundamentally nonexistent. Truly, this is peace and happiness, joyful liveliness." He is simply stating the experience of his meditation.

Ta Hui has not been able to understand it; his instruction is absolute nonsense. Finally he says, "and do not keep praying for relief." Anybody can see that he is saying things just to pose as a great instructor.

IN THE DAILY ACTIVITIES OF A STUDENT OF THE PATH...

Ta Hui does not understand the difference between a student, a disciple, and a devotee. The student is never on the path.

IN THE DAILY ACTIVITIES OF A STUDENT OF THE PATH, TO EMPTY OBJECTS IS EASY BUT TO EMPTY MIND IS HARD.

It seems to be his own experience; otherwise to empty the mind is the simplest thing. A thing is hard when it needs great effort to do it, but to empty the mind needs no effort at all. How can it be hard?

IF OBJECTS ARE EMPTY BUT MIND IS NOT EMPTY, MIND WILL BE OVERCOME BY OBJECTS.

HAVEN'T YOU SEEN THE VERSE WHICH LAYMAN P'ANG PRESENTED TO MA TSU?

IN THE TEN DIRECTIONS, THE SAME CONGREGATION: EACH AND EVERY ONE STUDIES NON-DOING.

Ta Hui is not clear anywhere that a seeker does not study. Only a student studies. A seeker absorbs, drinks. He absorbs the presence of the master, he allows the master's energy to transform his energy. The student collects information; the seeker is not interested in information -- his only interest is transformation. These are totally different things.

Each and everyone studies non-doing. How can you study non-doing? Either you can be in the state of non-doing, or you cannot be. But studying is not possible.

THIS IS THE PLACE WHERE BUDDHAS ARE CHOSEN: MINDS EMPTY, THEY RETURN SUCCESSFUL.

Gautam Buddha will not use the word `successful'. When you are not, there is no success, no failure. Success is an ego-projection. Failure is when that projection does not succeed and your ego feels hurt.

A buddha knows no success, no failure. He simply knows one thing: his awareness. And that awareness has always been there, there is no question of success. Even if he had slept a few lives more it would have remained there. Asleep or awake, it is always there.

If you are asleep you may be dreaming a thousand and one things; if you are awake those dreams disappear. So the only difference is that the sleeping person dreams, and the person of awakening stops dreaming. But that is not much of a difference... dreams are just dreams, they are not even as real as soap bubbles.

To allow such people as Ta Hui and his sutras to be holy scripture is a great misunderstanding on the part of people who have followed the path of Zen. Perhaps they have committed the same fallacy as other religions go on committing: if they see something wrong in their scriptures they ignore it, or they try to patch it up, or they try to interpret it in a way that somehow fixes it.

But I am not a person to do any patchwork. I am not the person to interpret somebody just so as to give the feeling that everything is right. When things are right, I am absolutely in support; when things are wrong, I am absolutely against them.

My commitment is towards truth.

My commitment is not towards anybody else.

Even if Jesus Christ or Buddha or Mahavira or Lao Tzu -- the great masters -- commit something which looks to me to be against my experience of truth, I am going to criticize it. That does not mean that I am against them. It simply means that I am totally for truth, and if I find anybody somewhere mistaken, in a fallacy, then with all due respect I have to point it out so that in the future nobody is confused by it.

Now this Ta Hui calls Buddha `the old barbarian' -- that I cannot tolerate! That piece I have to just throw away...! (Osho tears up the paper into four pieces, and throws it away.)

Okay, Maneesha?

Yes, Osho.

Zen

The Great Zen Master Ta Hui

Chapter-11

Emptying