Meditation in Mahayana Buddhism

Intentional Placement of the Mind
on the Object of Meditation
In Mahayana Buddhism:
Comparing Sanskrit and Tibetan
Texts with Those of Zen

By Bhikshu Tenzin Sherab
(a.k.a. Br. Sean Hillman)
University of Toronto
East Asian Studies
April 2007

Looking at Buddhist scriptures which are concerned with the practise of meditation, there is a recurring discrepancy that can be found between Zen texts on the one hand, and those from the Indian and Tibetan Buddhist traditions on the other. They are at odds in relation to the intentional placement of the mind on the object of meditation. The authors of the texts are not in opposition as to which objects the meditator is meant to use, which vary from the breath to the ultimate nature of reality, but rather whether there is the need to have the mind wilfully directed towards that object. Commonly it can be found that in Zen texts there is a call for the aspirant to not exert effort towards placing the mind on an object. The Indian and Tibetan texts vehemently disagree with this stance: there must always be an intentional moving of the mind towards, and placement upon, the object of meditation. In Zen there is encouragement instead for the mind to be left in its natural state or pervading some grander, nebulous or extremely subtle phenomenon such as one’s True Nature, the Big Mind or the entire body at the same time. Here it will be shown that this is quite different from other Mahayana texts, using shamata meditation in particular and specifically in comparison to Sanskrit and Tibetan texts. These non-Chinese groups of texts require, without fail, the meditator to exert effort to remain on the object in the practise of meditation.
We begin by looking at how the texts in our three traditions instruct the aspirant in regard to the activity of the mind in meditation with an excerpt from the Zen text “The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch” from Hui-Neng. Here, it is interesting that we find the term “abide” in the translation:
“If the mind does not abide in things the Tao circulates freely; if the mind abides in things, it becomes entangled.”1
“Abiding” is the very same word applied in the translaton of both the Sanskrit term ‘shamata’ and the Tibetan term ‘shi-nay’, both referred to as “calm-abiding.” In Sanskrit and Tibetan texts the meditator is instructed to abide on the object of meditation in order to achieve varying degrees of calmness, which results in the achievement of perfect concentration. There are numerous examples of texts that specify such placement of the mind, and, in addition to “abiding,” many terms referring to such placement. In a masterpiece of Buddhist instruction, the 14th century Tibetan scholar-saint Lama Tsong Khapa’s Lam Rim Chen mo (“Great Exposition on the Stages of the Path”), two entire volumes are dedicated specifically to meditation. In the sub-section “The Methods of Generating Faultless Samadhi” of this meditation manual “Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real,” there is an elaborate description on “how one performs at the time of fastening mind on a meditative object.”2 ‘Fastening’ appears again and again in Sanskrit texts as well. The Bhavanakrama explains that “the yogin fastens his mind upon the body form of the Tathagata…to accomplish calming” 3 and Aryasura concurs that the aspirant must “fasten his mind firmly to a single meditation object.” 4 Another term that is commonly used to describe the intentional directing of the mind towards an object is “fixation,” so much so that an oft used euphemism for shamata is “fixation meditation.” The Pratyutpana Sutra, one of the earliest sutras to be translated from Sanskrit to Chinese, similarly gives instruction on how to apply the mind when elucidating the Buddhanusmrti practise of recollection of the Buddha, in that “the bodhisattva should…fix his mind on those Tathagatas.”5 On the other hand, we can see an example in Zen texts of the habitual discouragement in regard to deliberate placement of the mind on an object when we read Japanese monk Ven. Takuan Soho’s “The Unfettered Mind.” He states that “the mind that becomes fixed and stops in one place does not function freely.” 6 The monk even goes so far as to make the sweeping statement that “in Buddhism we abhor…the mind remaining with one thing or another.” 7 He tops this off by saying that “putting the mind in one place is called one-sidedness…One-sidedness is despicable.” 8 Abiding (the Tibetan term “ney” is also used to for “to dwell”), fastening and fixation on the object of meditation are all encouraged in the Sanskrit and Tibetan texts, whereas the opposite is found in Zen.
Let us look at an object of meditation which would normally be seen as fitting in the category of vipasyana, or special insight, but which actually is held to be the highest of objects to be used as an object of concentration. This sacred object is emptiness, the nature of reality. Hui-Neng again gives us the Zen party-line with regards to directing the mind, this time when he admonishes the student against fixation on ultimate reality: “Do not sit with a mind fixed on emptiness.” 9 Other Mahayana texts greatly disagree. The 8th century Indian scholar-monk from Nalanda monastic university, Arya Shantideva, instructs himself in the great Mahayana text “A Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life”:
“…in order to dispel the obscurations
I shall withdraw my mind from mistaken ways
And constantly place it in equipoise
Upon the perfect object.” 10
This is an interesting verse to investigate because upon checking the Tibetan translation of the original Sanskrit, it appears the translator was using poetic license to make the verse flow better. It more accurately reads: “Also, always on the perfect object I meditate in equipoise,” and so is without any such word that resembles the verb “to place.” Although this verb is not present in the original, it may still be used as an example of explicit intentional placement on the object by virtue of the meaning of meditative equipoise. Since Shantideva was a follower of Arya Nagarjuna’s Madhyamika philosophy, it can safely be said without referring to other sources that the perfect object that he is referring to is emptiness itself. The Tibetan term “nyam par shak pa” (Sanskrit: samyapadyanata) is used synonymously with shi-ney (shamatha) and defined as “to concentrate on”11 so we are not referring here to special insight meditation, but rather on non-analytical fixation on emptiness.
To return to the first statement earlier quoted from Hui-Neng’s work, what is also fascinating is the use of the term “Tao.” Using a transliteration of the original Chinese rather than literally translating it as “The Way” may merely be the translator’s personal choice, but it may also indicate a Taoist influence on Hui-Neng, or a Taoist predisposition of his students. Here it is appropriate to briefly mention two Buddhist teachers influential in China that also share a common view on what is to be done with the mind in meditation and who both received a strong influence from Taoist philosophy. The first is the Chin Period master Fa-Wen (fl.374) who
“advocated the theory of the non-being of mind. By the non-being of mind is meant that one should not have any deliberate mind toward the myriad things.”12
It would be safe to have suspicion of a Taoist influence on this master because “one is reminded of the teaching of ‘having no deliberate mind of one’s own (wu-hsin)’ in…Chuang Tzu.”13 Next is the half-Chinese, half-Indian Seng-Chao (384-414) who
“served as a bridge between Buddhism and Taoism. His fondness for Lao Tzu and Chaung Tzu had a lasting influence on him. The Taoist idea…of…having no deliberate mind of his own [has] a prominent place in his philosophy.” 14
These three examples, of Hui-Neng, Fa-Wen and Seng-Chao, give us cause for further investigation into the degree to which pre-Buddhist Chinese thought, Taoism in particular, has influenced the change in meditation instruction from the Sanskrit texts towards that which we find in Zen texts, which discourage the intentional application of the mind towards the object in meditation.
A key factor in our discussion on the directing of the mind towards the object of meditation, or lack thereof, is that of the intention of the meditator. In Zen, we are most often told what NOT to do. Do NOT place the mind. Do NOT think. Do NOT exert yourself, which is reminiscent of the wu-wei of Taoism but vastly different from the Bodhisattva’s perfection of joyous effort. This remains within the scope of meditation as countless Mahayana texts state that all of the ten perfections are practised within each individual perfection. There is such thing as the joyous effort of meditation. A more modern Zen master, Shunryu Suzuki, teaches that “concentration is not to try hard to watch something…This is not concentration…Your effort should be directed at nothing.” 15 He goes on to say that “even to have a good thing in your mind is not so good….to have what [the Buddha] says in your mind is not so good.” 16 This is in direct opposition to a scholar-monk such as Lama Tsong Khapa who goes to great lengths to show the benefits towards achieving concentration which arises from exerting great effort and contemplation of powerful and holy topics. Je Rinpoche states that “[one must overcome] the sloth which lacks enthusiasm for cultivating samadhi” 17 and for the “elimination of…craving [one of many obstacles to concentration] one contemplates…the disadvantages of this life (found) in cravings, such as being killed.” 18 He encourages effort and virtuous contemplation to instill in the meditator the right frame of mind with which to accomplish the goal of meditation practise. Next we return to Ven. Soho’s text, where it is said that “when a person does not think, ’Where shall I put it?’ the mind will extend throughout the entire body and move about to any place at all.” 19 Again, this is at odds with the Indian scholar-monk Shantideva who writes:
“Having given up all other intentions
[save that of Bodhicitta],
Being motivated by only one thought,
I shall strive to settle my mind in equipoise
(by means of calm abiding)” 20
The Zen teacher recommends not directing the mind. The Indian teacher tells himself that he must consciously direct the mind.
It seems that the theme in Zen texts, when compared to the Sanskrit and Tibetan, is to prematurely jump ahead in the step-by-step instructions given by the Buddha and Indian commentators to be in a state which is the result of gradual practise. One is meant to progress in stages. Lama Tsong Khapa and Arya Shantideva are speaking to trainees at different stages on the path to enlightenment. In the case of Shantideva, the highest of adepts, he even writes to himself in the third person as if still a trainee! The difference between this approach and that found in many Zen texts can be seen clearly in “The Unfettered Mind” when Ven. Soho says that when
“viewed from the highest standpoint of Buddhism, putting the mind [in one place] and not allowing it to wander is a low level of understanding, not a high one. It is at the level of discipline and training.” 21
Zen texts speak of a very advanced state of development where the object of meditation is unnecessary because conscious effort has been transcended. Indian and Tibetan texts speak of the necessity of the object of meditation, because they are instructing practitioners of all levels according to their needs.


Endnotes
1) Yampolsky, Philip B. The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch p.136
2) Wayman, Alex Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real (Lama Tsong Khapa) p.103
3) Ibid. p.113
4) Ibid. p.114
5) Williams, Paul Mahayana Buddhism p.221
6) Soho, Ven. Takuan The Unfettered Mind p.33
7) Ibid. p.26
8) Ibid. p.31
9) Yampolsky, Philip B. The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch p.146
10) Batchelor, Stephen A Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life p.135
11) Hopkins, Jeffery Tibetan-Sanskrit-English Dictionary p.144
12) Chan, Wing Tsit A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy p.340
13) Ibid. p.341
14) Ibid. p.344
15) Suzuki, Shunryu Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind P.113
16) Ibid. p.127
17) Wayman, Alex Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real (Lama Tsong Khapa) p.103
18) Ibid. p.99
19) Soho, Ven. Takuan The Unfettered Mind P.31
20) Batchelor, Stephen A Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life p.108
21) Soho, Ven. Takuan The Unfettered Mind p.30


Bibliography
1) Yampolsky, Philip B. The Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch New York: Columbia University Press 1967
2) Wayman, Alex Calming the Mind and Discerning the Real (Lama Tsong Khapa) Motilal Banarsidass Publishers 1978
3) Williams, Paul Mahayana Buddhism Routledge 1989
4) Soho, Ven. Takuan The Unfettered Mind Kodansha International 1986
5) Batchelor, Stephen A Guide to the Bodhisattva’s Way of Life (Arya Shantideva) Library of Tibetan Works and Archives 1979
6) Hopkins, Jeffery Tibetan-Sanskrit-English Dictionary Tibetan Studies Institute 1992
7) Chan, Wing Tsit A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy Princeton University Press 1963
8) Suzuki, Shunryu Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind Weatherhill 1970