Is THE VIEW OF PRACTICE MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRACTICE ITSELF? | Zen Wisdom

QUESTION:
I have heard a Ch’an aphorism which goes something like this: “The practice is important, but the view of practice is even more important.” This seems to contradict everything I have ever heard about Ch’an. Ch’an says to drop the ego and subjective views. Any view I can possibly have must be subjective and therefore a distortion of the truth. It becomes yet another obstruction.
Also, isn’t an experience an experience, regardless of what the person practices or believes in? If the ego goes away, the ego goes away. What does it matter if the person is an atheist, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, or anything else? If you say that only Buddhists can have experiences where the ego drops, isn’t this elitist?

SHIH-FU:
The saying is a paraphrase of a line which reads: “What one knows or sees is more important than where one is stepping.” The phrase, “What one knows or sees, ” should not be replaced with the word “view, ” because view is something that can come from one’s learning. The phrase refers to those things that come directly from one’s experience. In the Lotus Sutra there is a saying, “To open what the Buddha knows and sees; to reveal what the Buddha knows and sees; to realize what the Buddha knows and sees; to enter what the Buddha knows and sees.” What the Buddha knows and sees is emptiness, no form, no attachment, no phenomena.

The line should be interpreted thusly: “What is known and seen is more important than what one is doing.” And “what is known and seen” specifically refers to what the Buddha knows and sees. How should a practitioner relate to this? First is the case of one who has experienced enlightenment and has entered into what Buddha knows and sees. How does one really know that what one sees is actually what the Buddha sees? One must gauge the experience against the teachings of the Buddha ─ the sutras. Practicing diligently, studying the sutras and keeping the precepts fall under the heading of “What one does.” In this case, what one does is not as important as what one sees or knows. If the experience is not real enlightenment, then one cannot know and see what the Buddha knows and sees.

If one has a good, qualified teacher, it is not absolutely necessary to read the sutras for proper guidance. Such a teacher should be able to determine if the experience is real or not, shallow or deep. If it isn’t enlightenment, then the teacher can point directly to the problem or sticking point ─ the obstruction or the attachment.

The aphorism is not advising people to abandon practice; rather, it is saying that practice is important, but that which the Buddha knows and sees is even more important.Without the guidance of th Buddha’s experience, people would not be practicing Buddhadharma correctly. They would be practicing outer path teachings. So, before enlightenment, practitioners need the guidance of what the Buddha knows and sees. After enlightenment, they still need to check their experience against the teachings of the Buddha and see if their experience is truly what the Buddha knows and sees.

If you have intellectually grasped what the Buddha knows and sees, even without enlightenment, you will not likely venture down the wrong path. You can even guide others in practice, but you won’t be able to confirm someone’s possible enlightenment. At least you can help people in the correct way of practice. On the other hand, if a teacher isn’t enlightened and does not conceptually understand what the Buddha knows and sees, he or she is probably practicing outer paths and leading others down the wrong path. People often practice with some attachment or expectation in mind ─ an idea that there is something to be gained. This can lead to problems.

From this perspective, I say that without the guidance of what the Buddha knows and sees, practitioners of other religions cannot experience the Buddha’s enlightenment, no matter how deep their experience. Such persons will still have an idea of, or an attachment to, an unchanging, eternal totality ─ an omnipresence. What it is called does not matter. When one experiences an unchanging totality or eternity, it is not what the Buddha knows and sees.

To attain this level of practice ─ to experience totality ─ is extremely difficult and a sign of progress. Many practitioners, including Buddhists, have shallow experiences of this nature. They feel a lightness or peace; they might believe that they are free from self-centeredness, but they still have attachments. This is why one needs the guidance of a good teacher.

Many practitioners misinterpret this kind of experience, which could, indeed, correspond to fairly elementary levels of attainment. For example, there are four fruition levels in the Hinayana tradition, but prior to this there are four preliminary levels: level of warmth, top level, level of wisdom, level of first in the world. Only after these four levels can someone enter the fruition levels, of which the fourth is the true arhat position. Many practitioners, Ch’an included, think they are already enlightened when in fact they have only experienced the first level of warmth.

STUDENT:
Is it possible to practice outside of Buddhism and experience no-self?

SHIH-FU:
No, it’s impossible. Mo matter what path or practice you choose, you will have some attainment or expectation in your mind.

STUDENT:
Is it possible that such a person can practice without any idea of gain?

SHIH-FU:
Yes. Such a person would be called a pratyekabuddha ─ someone who becomes enlightened without the Buddha’s teachings. But in the sutras it is said that it is only possible to be a pratyekabuddha in a world where there is no Buddhadharma.

STUDENT:
You mention shallow and deep enlightenment. When you mention experiences, are you referring exclusively to experiences of no-self?

SHIH-FU:
Not necessarily. If I am talking about Ch’an enlightenment, then I am talking about experiences of no-self. Often, however, I use the word enlightenment to refer to all kinds of experiences from many spiritual and non-spiritual traditions. People from many different traditions often have the experience of a great totality. These can be considered enlightenment experiences, but they are not experiences of no-self.

A shallow Ch’an experience will last for a short time and a deep experience will last longer. Also, with a deeper experience a person sees emptiness more clearly. His or her sense of emptiness is solid, whereas the shallow experience is not as clear or solid.

The deepest enlightenment is when you are not just seeing emptiness, but rather are in the midst of emptiness. The stages of enlightenment experience may be compared to a person’s gradually increasing experience of wine. The first stage is a person who has never seen or tasted wine. In the next stage the person has seen it and knows what it looks like, but has not yet tasted it. Next, the person tastes it and now knows the flavor. Later, if still interested, the person may want another taste, or a whole glass. Last is the stage where the person jumps into the barrel of wine. At this point there is no separation from the wine. To speak of thirst is no longer relevant.

STUDENT:
Is it possible for someone who does not know Buddhadharma to experience no-self? Is it possible that they do have the experience, but because their background is different they interpret it differently? Perhaps they see it as God or totality.

SHIH-FU:
It is impossible for such people to have the true experience of no-self. One who experiences no-self enters into the realm of what the Buddha knows and sees. Such a person would not interpret or explain it as God or totality.

STUDENT:
I read an anecdote about a woman who was not practicing at all, just going through an intense period in her life. What naturally arose in her mind was the question, “Who am I?” She had an experience from it and it changed her view of herself and the world. Some time later she read some books on Zen Buddhism and saw the connection between her experience and Zen. She talked to a roshi and he confirmed her experience.

SHIH-FU:
If it happened as you say and a legitimate roshi confirmed her experience, it would mean she is something like a pratyekabuddha because she had no preconception of emptiness. On the other hand, if the roshi encouraged her to practice further and then guided her, and then she experienced more, that is perfectly understandable.

I knew an American who had an experience twenty-five years ago. He went to a master and his experience was confirmed. Ten years later he felt some of his problems were not resolved so he went to another master and his past experience was again confirmed. Another fifteen years went by and still he wasn’t satisfied. He was a teacher at a center, so he left and came to me. I told him there were certain problems with his understanding. I told him that he probably had a legitimate experience and that was good, but he was clinging to a memory. If someone thinks the memory of a long-gone experience is the experience itself, then that person has problems. I told this man to practice hard and say, “No good, ” to whatever experience he might have. If he practiced in this manner and later needed guidance, I would gladly help out.

The woman that you speak of was open-minded and flexible and had no attachment to her experience. Therefore, she probably could practice in a smooth manner after her initial experience. But this man had expectations, so he had problems.

STUDENT:
In the Ch’an sect there are numerous examples of people who had genuine experiences of no-self and yet still encountered many problems afterward. Does this mean that the initial experience was not genuine?

SHIH-FU:
No, these experiences could very well have been genuine. A good teacher would be able to ascertain the authenticity of the experiences and help these people to have more and deeper Ch’an experiences. But there are no guarantees. A person’s practice might slip. Perhaps a teacher and student do not connect. There are any number of reasons. A person who experiences no-self can regress. A perfect example is the story of the American teacher. He had an experience that was confirmed by a teacher, but he still had problems later on. He came to me to see if the right causes and conditions, or karmic affinity, existed between us, but I felt not, so I gave him a method and advised him to return to his old teacher.

STUDENT:
You said in order to have a no-self experience, one needs to have an understanding of Ch’an and also have a qualified teacher. In the case of the woman, what if she had been a Buddhist nun or monk in a previous life or had a deep experience in a previous life, and in this life the causes and conditions finally came together in an enlightenment experience?

SHIH-FU:
Even if you have practiced in previous lives, in this life you still need a teacher and teachings; but if you practiced well in previous lives, things will likely progress more quickly in this life. Even the Sixth Patriarch, who had great karmic roots, and attained enlightenment when he heard a line from the Diamond Sutra, still had to go the Fifth Patriarch for guidance. He didn’t hear a line from an ordinary book or from that of a different religion. It was Buddhadharma that he heard.

One could argue that a person who has never heard of Buddhadharma in fact lives in a world without it, so he or she could in fact be a pratyekabuddha. If this is so, then how would this person’s attainment be gauged? We use Buddhist criteria to gauge the level of Buddhist attainment. If such a person claims to be enlightened by Buddhist standards, then likely he or she is not. Since the time of the Buddha, there have been many people ─ scholars, leaders, philosophers ─ who had experiences and who claimed that they were enlightened in the Buddhist sense. They were probably wrong. Their experiences must be judged against the principles of Buddhadharma. The fact is, certain aspects of Buddhism are different from all other religions. Therefore, people who do not have a clear understanding of Buddhadharma will not have Buddhist enlightenment experiences.

STUDENT:
You said that a person who has the correct understanding of Buddhadharma, even without enlightenment, could guide others in their practice. How does one know if one has a correct understanding without the experience to go with it?

SHIH-FU:
If you have a good teacher and are a sincere practitioner, then you ought to be familiar with many principles of Buddhadharma. Much of Buddhism is not too difficult to understand and communicate. Also, you can develop a sound, intellectual understanding of the Dharma through appropriate literature. Armed with such knowledge, you can teach others on a rudimentary level. However, you should not deal with big issues. Obviously, and most importantly, you have no capability of confirming or disavowing someone else’s supposed enlightenment experience. I must also stress that if you are intent on teaching others about Buddhism or leading others in meditation, you should first get permission from your teacher. This holds whether you are a lay practitioner or a monastic.

Problems arise when people use their own religious experiences to explain or interpret the sutras. That is reversing the correct procedure, and it is dangerous. One should not use one’s own experience to interpret sutras. One should use sutras to interpret one’s experiences. If people use their own experiences to interpret the sutras, then there will be problems. That is why it is best to study with a good and qualified teacher.

PREVIOUS: NANCY PATCHEN | Zen Wisdom
NEXT: IS ENLIGHTENMENT WORTH IT? | Zen Wisdom