THE BUDDHIST CONCEPT OF MERIT AND VIRTUE | Zen Wisdom

QUESTION:
You often speak of compassion and meritorious deeds, but for ordinary sentient beings it is impossible to be compassionate in the ultimate sense that is expounded by Buddhist teachings. For instance, when the Emperor of China asked Bodhidharma how much merit he would receive for all the temples he had built, Bodhidharma said none, because he was doing it with attachment. Unless we are enlightened, it is impossible to act and be compassionate without attachment. It is disheartening, and if what Bodhidharma said is true, then it implies that there really is no such thing as merit. If that is the case, what is the point of transferring merit at the end of retreats?

SHIH-FU:
In the story of the Emperor and Bodhidharma, it is important to understand the meaning behind Bodhidharma’s words, which was to break up the Emperor’s attachment. If people perform actions with merit in mind, then their egocentrism will grow and become stronger. For this reason, Ch’an masters often make such comments.

There are two vantage points from which to view Buddhadharma. One is the view of ordinary sentient beings, and it takes the perspective of phenomena and looks forward. This is also known as the causal position. Whenever you say or do something, karma is created, and of course afterwards there will be some effect for that karma. Therefore, when you accumulate merit for performing good acts, later there will be good effects for those acts. This is the principle of cause and consequence. For ordinary sentient beings, cause and consequence work in the worldly, or phenomenal, realm. Causes and consequences in the worldly realm have outflows; that is, they are a part of, and are influenced by, self-attachment. These causes and consequences include good karma, bad karma, virtue and merit.

The second view is that of enlightened beings. There are causes and consequences that transcend the worldly, or phenomenal, realm. These causes and consequences have no outflows (no attachment), and likewise, the effects of these causes and consequences have no outflows. Such “phenomena” are bodhi, nirvana, and Buddhahood. People at such a vantage point are completely enlightened. They are at the highest position. They are at the consequence position looking backward at the causes.

People with the first perspective are ordinary sentient beings who reside in samsara. If people who are still in samsara say there will be no consequences or retribution for words and actions ─ no bad karma accumulated for bad deeds and no good karma or merit for good deeds ─ then they have an incorrect view. These people would likely not follow Buddhadharma or practice because they feel there is no consequence for practice. Worse, they might do or say anything if they believe there are no consequences for their words and actions.

Completely enlightened people, however, perceive and understand that there really is no merit or virtue to speak of. Merit and virtue only exist in relation to a perceived self. Enlightened people have realized the nature of emptiness. Their merit and virtue have been transformed into wisdom. Enlightened people would also say that there is no such thing as wisdom or attainment; enlightenment is not attained through wisdom and merit because virtue, wisdom and merit are relative concepts. So from the enlightened position it is correct to say there is no merit or virtue.
We must not confuse the enlightened position with the unenlightened position. If enlightened people still claim that merit and virtue exist, then they are not fully enlightened. If unenlightened people claim there is no such thing as virtue and merit, they are talking out of ignorance because they still are attached to a self. People who hold this belief would not practice, and without practice, they would never have the opportunity to achieve the correct realization. It is important that one intellectually understands the difference between the causal (unenlightened) position and the consequence (enlightened) position.

We can interpret the story of the Emperor who boasted of his accomplishments to Bodhidharma from two positions. From the causal position, the Emperor did in fact accumulate merit and virtue, because he performed worthy deeds. But Bodhidharma answered from the consequence position. He did this to shock the Emperor, to help him wake up from his attachment. He was trying to help the Emperor see into the emptiness of phenomena. He was trying to get the Emperor to realize that in any situation, the action, the agent of the action and the result of the action are all empty. Unfortunately, Bodhidharma’s method didn’t work on the Emperor.

The Emperor should not be condemned or cast in a disparaging light, because he was a dedicated Buddhist and a loyal supporter of the Sangha. He just wasn’t receptive to the shockingly direct approach of Ch’an methods. His life and deeds were exemplary, however, and indeed he deserves praise. Historically, this exchange between Bodhidharma and the Emperor probably never took place. Nonetheless it is famous because of its relevance to the teachings of the Buddha.

This story has generated a lot of confusion through the centuries, so in order to help people, another story was invented to help clarify things. The story involves Master Pai-chang (720-814), who lived a few hundred years after Bodhidharma. After one of Pai-chang’s talks, an old man in the audience lingered behind and said: “I am not really a human being, but in fact the spirit of a fox. In ancient times I was a monk. A student asked me if an enlightened person was still subject to cause and consequence. I told him that an enlightened person was not so bound. For this reason I have been reborn as a fox for five hundred lifetimes. Now I am asking you to enlighten me on this matter.”

Pai-chang said, “An enlightened person is not ignorant of cause and consequence.”

The old man became enlightened by these words. Happily, he prostrated to Pai-chang and said, ‘Tomorrow, please go behind the mountain and perform a ceremony appropriate for a dead monk.”
The next day Pai-chang obeyed the old man’s wishes and went behind the mountain. In a cave he found the body of the fox, which he cremated.

This story is also legendary, but it serves a good purpose. Many people misunderstood the story of Bodhidharma and the Emperor, and suffered and caused suffering because of their misconception. Hence, the story of Master Pai-chang and the fox was created.

The Ch’an sect does not speak of process or progress. It does not take the causal position. It speaks only from the result, or consequence, position, so it always uses the negative approach instead of the affirmative approach; that is, it aims to break up any and all attachments. Ch’an does not want the individual to rely on or embrace anything.

Master Lin-chi (d. 866/67) once commented that all the Buddhas of the past, present and future were simple fools, and he had similar comments for bodhisattvas and arhats. The idea is that there really are no Buddhas, bodhisattvas or arhats, but this is the standpoint of a completely enlightened being. For ordinary sentient beings, there truly are Buddhas, bodhisattvas and arhats. If people take Lin-chi’s words at face value, they may believe that the Buddha didn’t exist, that all of his teachings are garbage, and that there is no purpose in practicing. If it is your idea that it is okay to remain a sentient being without attempting to practice, you would be rebuked by a master. On the other hand, if you are over-awed and intimidated by the teachings of Buddhadharma, then you would also be scolded by a master. As I said, Ch’an often speaks from the ultimate position. These are the realizations and attainments of completely enlightened beings. They are aspirations to admire, not fear.

The Ch’an approach is like a sharp, double-edged sword. It can both help and hurt. The people who have good karmic roots can be helped by the methods of Ch’an, and they can use the methods to attain realization. On the other hand, people with serious karmic obstructions may interpret the teachings incorrectly and then suffer because of their erroneous understanding. That is why it is necessary to study Buddhadharma and practice with a good teacher, so that you do not stray down the wrong path.

Many people misunderstand the Ch’an approach. Someone once said to me, “Shih-fu, I just read a couple of kung-ans. They are terrifying. A monk asked a master if he should repeat the Buddha’s name, and the master replied that if he repeated the Buddha’s name even once he ought to gargle for three days. In another story a monk asked what the Buddha was. The master replied that he had never heard of such a thing. So the monk asked him about Sakyamuni, and the master said that if he had run into him he would have beaten him to death and thrown his body to the dogs. It sounds like we are listening to the words of crazy people!”

From the point of view of Buddhadharma, cursing the Buddha is one of the five worst kinds of karma. These masters should have been in big trouble, but these stories are in the same vein as that of Bodhidharma and the Emperor. They are meant to shock the practitioners into awakening, and are usually spoken to someone very close to realization. In Ch’an these statements are sometimes called “turning words.” Ch’an masters use such methods to break up people’s attachments. Ch’an masters are not being arrogant. They make these statements to help practitioners. The Ch’an masters who made these comments would likely have been seen prostrating to a Buddha statue later on. People who hear the masters’ words and later witness their actions would probably think the masters were hypocritical or insane. But in fact it is simply the masters’ way to help sentient beings transcend discriminations such as self and other, nirvana and samsara, Buddhas and ordinary sentient beings. They try to shatter a person’s reliance on polarities and relativity.

On one retreat a long while ago in Taiwan, someone asked me if he could recite the Buddha’s name as a method instead of counting breaths. I asked, “Which Buddha?”
“Amitabha Buddha.”
“Here we don’t have Amitabha Buddha, so you can’t recite his name, ” I replied.
The person returned to his cushion, looked around and noticed a statue of Amitabha Buddha.
He returned and said, “How come you said that? There’s a statue right over there.”
“I didn’t put that statue there, ” I said. “My master did.”
Later on the practitioner saw me prostrating to that very statue, so he asked, “How come you can prostrate to Amitabha?”
I said, “If my master prostrated to Amitabha, how dare I not do the same? All the same, you can’t recite Amitabha Buddha’s name.”
But the person was persistent and said, “Shih-fu, I’d really like to use that method because I don’t feel there is any virtue or merit in just counting breaths.”
Eventually I let him do what he wanted to do, and it was from that point onward that I allowed people to use the method of reciting the Buddha’s name.

STUDENT:
Speaking from a relative level, which is where all of us are, what is compassionate behavior and what is not? If someone performs an action of charity or goodness, but has ulterior motives ─ not harmful but selfish ─ and another person performs a similar action out of altruism, is the compassion different and is different merit accrued? From the point of view of the recipient of the action, it is the same, but in one case the person gets a big tax exemption and his name in the press, and the other person does so anonymously and with no strings attached. Is there a difference?

SHIH-FU:
If someone does something good, then there is merit involved, and the person is being, to a greater or lesser degree, compassionate. The question is, how compassionate is the person really? It depends on what the motive or intention is behind the action. If a person is acting altruistically, then that is more compassionate than a person who is merely looking for a tax break. But they both receive merit because they both performed virtuous deeds. The general rule is, the more selfish the mind, the less the compassion, and therefore, the less the merit accrued.

STUDENT:
But everything we think, say and do stems from selfish mind. It’s impossible for ordinary people to do things devoid of a self. I suppose I could do something good automatically, without thinking about the consequences of my actions, but later, in hindsight, I might give myself a pat on the back. Does that change the merit of my action?

SHIH-FU:
It’s normal to feel good about yourself if you do something good. As long as you are attached to a self, then it is impossible not to feel self-centered. If you could do something without being self-centered, then there would be no merit or virtue involved. You would be a Buddha or bodhisattva. There is merit and virtue only if there is a self. If you do good deeds, then of course you are creating good karma, and you will receive merit for your actions. As I said earlier, it depends on your state of mind. Your actions might be based on greed or your actions might be based on love. One is more virtuous than the other. But in both cases, the actions and motives stem from a self.

STUDENT:
Is it possible to be less attached to things, or is it an all-or-nothing proposition?

SHIH-FU:
Yes, there are different levels and degrees of attachment. Some people are obsessive about everything; some people are excessively greedy; some people are very attached to some things and not at all to others; some people’s desires are light across the board. It all depends on the person, the level of his or her practice, his or her state of mind, and the situation. If you are concerned with the motives behind your thoughts, words and actions, then the best thing would be to practice so that you may develop clearer self-awareness.

STUDENT:
In Buddhism, what is the relationship between compassion and wisdom? It seems they always go together, like two sides of a coin. Are they necessarily a pair? Can you have one without the other? Or are they the same thing?

SHIH-FU:
Wisdom can be described in two ways. One way refers to your own self. The other refers to how you relate to other sentient beings. When you use wisdom to interact with others, that is compassion. Compassion only exists in relation to others. True compassion does not exist without wisdom, and true compassion only exits when there is no self and no attachments.

PREVIOUS: PRECEPTS AND KARMA | Zen Wisdom
NEXT: CONSCIOUSNESS AND THE FIVE SKANDHAS | Zen Wisdom