Why I Emphasize Three-Yanas-ln-One

CW27:No.13
(Chapter VI of Buddhist Meditation: Systematic and Practical)

Yogi C. M. Chen

We have to consider that the whole system of the three yanas is certainly mentioned in the Lotus Sutra (Saddharma Pundanka Sutra) but the Three-Yanas-in-One as found in this book is a little different. The Buddha wanted the three not separate but united. He said that no three yanas can be found, only one; thus to make our meaning quite clear we do not use the term Triyana but rather Three-Yanas-in-One. This stresses that the three are continuous from one to another, that they are three stages of one path. In truth, there are neither three yanas separately, nor is there only one. To think of each complete in itself is to fragment the unity of the Dharma and to talk of only one might imply the claimed superiority of the doctrine of any one school. On this matter we shall talk in detail later.

In our case, we have 3-in-1, which seem separate but are still united, united yet separate. Why are they separate? Because of the different stages of meditators and the degrees of practice suitable for them. Thus, some are skilled, some unskilled, some neophytes and some old hands; thus the Buddha knew and arranged his teachings accordingly, saying, first take Hinayana and after that comes Mahayana and from that go on to Vajrayana. Why are they united? Because the Buddha taught us many teachings over a long period and these collectively are called the Triyana. Without seeing truly how they are related, people will be confounded. These yanas are not two ways or three, not double or triple but follow from one another in a certain sequence to be described, to form different levels of the same path. And so, for these reasons, we should try to see the unity of the three, and unite these three into one in our practice.

Someone might at this point object, saying, "Why not talk about the five yanas?" In answer we should say that, to begin with, the Five Ways have already been mentioned (See Chapters IV & V of my book Buddhist Meditation: Systematic and Practical) and then given a detailed explanation about these five: Man-Yana, Heaven-Yana, Sravakayana, Pratyeka-Yana, Bodhisattva-Yana.

a. The first two of the five are the preparation, the skin and flesh and not the main part or heart of meditation.

b. The second two are both Hinayana. This yana should be considered as one, there is no need for two separately.

c. The last one concerns the Bodhisattva career but reaches the exoteric Mahayana only and does not include the esoteric doctrine. Therefore, the latter, the Vajrayana, must still be added.

So the system of the three yanas is less in number than the five, but it is more comprehensive in range.

Now we have to come to the point by point answer to the talk's opening question, "What are the REAL reasons why we should show clearly the whole system of Three-In-One?"

I

The first purpose is to get rid of nonsensical arguments between the various yanas and many schools. We should consider a number of examples of this.

A. Hinayana versus Mahayana

The Hinayana generally (though now only the Theravadins of Southern Buddhist tradition remain as an independent school) do not admit the Mahayana Sutras to be the sayings of the Buddha. Let us examine a number of points in this connection.

1) Some Hinayanists say that the canonical literature of the Great Way is not Buddha-word but the invention of Nagarjuna or Asvaghosa. But those believing in this way should know that even if the Mahayana teachings were revealed by those sages, there is still good reason to believe in them. The Buddha has many bodies, one of which is called the Nisyandakaya (from Chinese we get the meaning, "Equal throughout"). This body is an impartial outflowing, a flowing everywhere of the preaching Buddha, even into heavens and descending into hells. The Buddha, creating these human-like forms, causes them to preach whatever he wishes and according to what is suitable for that time and has, among other realms, taught much in the world of Dragons (Nagaloka).

It is recorded that at first Nagarjuna who was very intelligent but proud wanted to establish his own religion as he was not satisfied with the Hinayana preachings of the Buddha. It was his conceit which caused him to think of establishing a religion superior to Buddhadharma.

Then the Naga-King invited him to come to his palace and read the extensive teaching left there by the Buddha. Nagarjuna read the Avatamsaka Sutra and by this he was converted to the Mahayana. This great discourse he brought with him back to the human world. If all sutras of Mahayana were made by himself without the grace of Buddha, why did he not establish his own religion as he already desired?

Not only have the great teachers of the past found out the Buddha's teachings, I myself was asked by a Divine Voice during my meditation, "You should repeat the Sutra of the Dragon-King." This discourse I had never seen separately printed and had not taken any care to study it although I had read the Tripitaka four times. After this experience, I took out this Sutra and studied it and found many excellent doctrines and holy instructions. In this work, the venerable Sariputra, the first in wisdom among the disciples and present at the deep teachings of Sunyata in the Heart Sutra, followed the Buddha to his preaching in the Naga palace. Listening, he realized that such an excellent discourse he had not heard in the human world. He then asked the Buddha why he had not preached this highest truth among human beings. The Buddha then warned him not to look down or dislike the state of Dragons. He said that there are many Bodhisattvas, many Bhiksus and Upasakas here who, through the commission of a little evil, have fallen into this watery realm. The Nagas being to some extent prepared for the teachings, the Buddha is able to leave with them many more doctrines than can be taught in the world of men.

Nor should we forget that the Buddha foretold the coming of Nagarjuna in the Lankavatara Sutra-in the passage saying that after eight hundred years have passed, such a sage will arise. Then Buddha sent Nagarjuna so that he might make the Dharma flourish. And it is also written in the Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra that Nagarjuna was a Buddha in the past named "Mystic-Clouds-Form Buddha." Asvaghosa was once a Buddha as well, and in a past kalpa bore the name "Great-Light Buddha."

2) As the followers of Hinayana may have the doubt that Nagarjuna himself wrote these scriptures, therefore we cannot give these teachings as proof that he did not do so. Now Buddhism is simply a religion of Truth and certainly not of blind faith and superstition. The Buddhist is always encouraged by his Teacher to find out the highest truth and where this has been taught most clearly. He may then compare the Hinayana and Mahayana teachings and after a thorough examination may determine that he prefers the latter to the former. In the latter, the truth preached is complete whereas the truths of the former are not ultimate. It is Buddhist tradition to believe the Truth and not who said it: Truth (but not the person) is the most important. Supposing Nagarjuna had established a religion with a teaching going further than the Buddha's preaching in the Hinayana, then we should believe Nagarjuna and not the Buddha, since the former taught the ultimate and complete truth.

In the Prajnaparamita Sutra, a list of four reliances are given:

i. Our faith relies on truth and not on persons.

ii. We believe in the truth itself but not in letter and words of scripture.

iii. And in the ultimate but not in the incomplete truth.

iv. Finally, we lay stress on wisdom of realization (prajna) and not on mere consciousness (vijnana) of human mind.

3) In the Mahayana, it is never said that Hinayana is not Buddha-word. It is said that the Buddha preached the Lesser as foundation for the Great Vehicle and this despite the fact that the Mahayana is already so complete. The latter does not at all mind admitting and indeed respecting the Hinayana, so why in their turn should the Theravadins be so narrow in their outlook?

4) If the four Agamas (Nikayas) are carefully read, then in some places we find references to the Bodhisattvas, past Buddhas, and other subjects often thought of as treated only by the Mahayana. The Agamas are not the only teaching of the Sravakas, although principally concerned with this.

In the well-known invocation to the Buddha Gautama widely used in Theravada lands in Pali: Namo tassa Bhagavato Arhato Sama-sambuddhassa, there are significant meanings to these three epithets of Buddha:

Bhagavat-- the Excellent among men. The position of Cause representing the human body appearing among mankind but exalted above them.

Arhat-- the Worthy One, in the position of Course (or Path) since the Buddha practiced as a bhiksu himself, by his own life showing the way to others.

Samyak Sambuddha-- the Fully Enlightened One and the aim of the Bodhisattva. This is in the position of Consequence.

Although the teachings of the Agamas do not mention clearly the Six Paramitas, still their elements can be discovered. For instance, the Dharmapada, a Hinayana work, gives the following verses on Dana:

332. In this world it is good to serve mother
And good to serve father as well.
Good it is to serve the monks
And good to give to the Noble Ones.

177. Truly, the miserly fare not to heaven worlds
Nor indeed do fools praise liberality,
But the wise man rejoices in giving
And by such acts alone, he becomes happy hereafter.

Great importance is given also to Silas as may be seen from the many stanzas on this subject in the Dharmapada:

116. Hasten to do good, restrain your mind from evil.
Whoever is slow to do good, his mind delights in evil.

50. Let none find out the faults of others
Nor what is done or left undone by them.
But one should only see--
What is done and not done by oneself.

133. Do not speak harshly to anyone,
Those spoken to thus will retort,
Indeed angry speech is hurtful;
Beware, lest others retaliate.

246-247.
Whoever in this world
Destroys life,
Utters lies,
Takes what is not given,
Consorts with others?wives,
Or is addicted to taking strong drinks?
Such a man digs up his own root (of goodness) in this very world.

234. The wise are controlled in body,
Controlled in speech are they
And controlled in mind (as well);
Truly, they are well-controlled in every way.
Kshanti (patience) is also praised in this book:

134. If, like a broken gong, you utter nothing,
Then you have reached Nirvana; for anger is unknown to you.

184. For bearance and patience are the highest penance,
"Nirvana is supreme," proclaim the Buddhas,
Hurting others bodily, one is not a monk,
One is not a recluse oppressing others.

The last three Paramitas (Virya, zeal; Samadhi, meditation; and Prajna, wisdom) are to be found mentioned in many places as desirable spiritual qualities if not as Perfections. Although we may trace these qualities going by the same names in both yanas, yet there is a difference in their underlying philosophy.

These qualities are not Paramitas since they lack the teaching of non-egoism (of both persons and Dharmas). The Hinayana philosophy of an atomic theory of indivisible particles and the idea of instants of time in which "minds" arise, abide and decline, and which cannot be divided, make this teaching incomplete. Why should these little ideas of permanence be clung to (referring particularly to the Sarvastivada Abhidharma theories of matter and time)? However, the Buddha first preached to those of undeveloped faith and therefore encouraged his listeners to prove his doctrine of Sunyata by analysis, till there remained only particles regarded as unbreakable. Only later was he able to teach the full doctrine of Sunyata to those who might understand its very nature without analysis.

In his lifetime among men, comparatively long though it was, the Buddha could never complete the preaching of the Dharma. It was necessary for others by the power of the Tathagata to reveal to the world the more advanced teachings when the time was right. Such teachers were, for instance, Asvaghosa and Nagarjuna and all the other great sages upon whom he has in the past and may in the future bestow his Dharma as he wishes. And myself, though so poor in Enlightenment, have gotten many doctrines bestowed by the Dharmakaya in the Holy Light of meditation. Among all of my Dharma treasures seen in the Holy Light, there were only a few mudras (sacred hand gestures) that were confirmed by my Chinese Guru. He imparted to me some mudras from the Japanese Tantra by correspondence after I had seen them in my Dharma-treasure in the Holy Light and most of them have never yet been proved by my Gurus from Tibet, as some had died while others were not with me in my hermitage. However, these mudras were not uncaused, nor were they made by myself. If I should claim they were self-made, it would be a great lie against the Dharma for all of them are a treasure from the Buddha's grace. Such a great lie, not like those of business, should bear the punishment of falling into the hells.

5) In history, only 450 years passed between the Buddha's Parinirvana and the birth of Asvaghosa. In the meanwhile, Manjusri who had so often heard the Lord preach, remained purposely on this earth so that the works of Asvaghosa were doubly blessed by the inspiration of this Bodhisattva's presence and by the Dharmakaya. Asvaghosa as an intelligent Brahmin whose attention had been turned towards the Buddha's teachings and who had been blessed as we have described, wrote the Mahayana Sraddhotpada Shastra. The Buddha indeed had such an intention for the development of the Mahayana.

The four great Councils of the Hinayana (according to Sarvastivada traditions) at Rajagriha, Vaisali, Kusumapura and Kubha (or Kasmir), we do believe to be true. In the Mahayana also there have been Councils held by Manjusri. It is recorded in the last chapter of the Prajnaparamita Sutra that he was commanded by the Buddha shortly before his passing-away, to collect together all the Mahayana teachings. For the faithful there can be no doubt about this as this Sutra was written by the famous teacher NagarJuna himself and would he dare to tell a lie? To convince the skeptical is more difficult as they may point out that this work was composed by a champion of the Great Way.

B. Exoteric versus Esoteric

In China, Mahayanists have sometimes said that the Vajrayana is not the word of the Buddha. They have been called heretics, or outsiders, like brahmanism and its followers. Such statements are the work of the ignorant and unfortunately very few understood well the old Vajrayana tradition in China since knowledge of it was confined to very few-- to the Emperor and his court-- and did not influence society in general. The three sages from India who taught it in the Tang dynasty, Vajrabodhi, Amoghavajra, and Subhakarasimha, knew the Vajrayana very well but as it was restricted to a few persons, the unlearned say that it was not Buddhism. They do not know properly. This must be emphasized because we want to make very clear the whole and complete system of the yanas, Three-in-One.

The sutras on which the old Chinese Vajrayana school was based (and which is the foundation for the present Shingonshu in Japan) are also found in Tibetan, so Chinese Mahayanists could not think that they were produced in China. And why do they not read the Chinese Tripitaka? There are good translations of both the Vajrasekhara and Mahavairocana Sturas, the canonical base of the Vajrayana of both China and Japan. If Mahayanists suspect the authenticity of the Vajrayana, why do they not read these?

C. The Japanese Tantra versus the Tibetan Anuttarayoga

Teachers and writers on Shingon have said that the highest yoga of the Tibetan Tantras is not the Buddha's Teaching. It has also been said that Padmasambhava was not a true Buddhist but rather a follower of Brahmanism! (Even some Gelug-pas of great learning have also said this.)

Japanese authorities have rebuked the Fourth Yoga because of the secret Third Initiation yogic practices, saying that these are very bad, immoral and other such accusations. They also urge that the Fourth Yoga is included in the Third (the Yoga Tantra with its teachings of Vajradhatu and Garbhadhatu), and that the Third Yoga is not found in Tibet. But on both counts they are not correct: firstly, the subjects dealt with in Anuttara Yoga are only touched upon in the third Tantra-group, and secondly, Tsong-kha-pa in his "Nga-rim" deals fully with the Yoga Tantra teaching, though admittedly it is not so much stressed as in Japan. The Fourth Yoga was not, they must recognize, taken to China or taught there by the three Tantrika sages. Kumarajiva, the great translator, certainly knew these most secret teachings and practiced them but he did not teach them to others.

A story told about this teacher runs like this: He was envied by some monks who practiced the usual exoteric Mahayana doctrines, since he carried out the Third Initiation with many beautiful companions. Once he invited all these monks to a tea-party. He arranged a cup and a needle before each visitor and asked them to take the needles with their tea. Nobody had the courage to do so. He then collected all the needles and swallowed them, and again sent them out from the pores of his skin by his power matured from the Third Initiation. Afterwards, no one dared to speak against him or to feel envy toward him.

I advise: First one must practice the lower three parts of the Tantras and then the Tantra specially taught in Tibet. I have written a long essay on this subject entitled, "The Japanese Yogi for his Advancement should learn Anuttarayoga." There I have advised the Japanese Tantrikas to study the Anuttarayoga with the first three Tantra-groups as its foundation. And the Tibetans I have requested to practice thoroughly the first three yogas since their emphasis on the fourth tends to lead to a neglect of these necessary preparations.

The example, forty years ago, of a famous Chinese monk Ta Yung who took ten of his disciples to Japan also shows us the way to go. Firstly, in Japan he studied and practiced the three yogas taught in Shingon. Not feeling satisfied with the results of this meditation, he then went to Tibet and learned the Anuttarayoga. His knowledge being completed in the Tantras, he was able to help many monks and laypeople understand the Vajrayana.

It is only when one has studied all that one may criticize and not before.

D. In Tibet, they surely all believe in the three yanas but a little conflict between differences of doctrine is seen between the New Party (Gelug-pa) formed upon the teachings of Tsong-kha-pa and the Old Party of various schools (Nyimg-ma-pa, Kar-gut-pa, Sakya-pa, etc.) We should examine these conflicting points and see whether or not they can be harmonized.

Tsong-kha-pa does not admit that the Great Perfection of the Nying-ma-pa or any other Mahamudra realization can be attained before the third initiation (abhiseka) which particularly empowers one to practice the divine yogic union. He did not want to separate these and said one may attain to the fourth initiation like Mahamudra only after practicing the third. The Nying-ma-pa, however, teach two ways, one of Liberation and the other of Vajra-love Practice. Both may lead their practitioners to Full Enlightenment in this life.

Another point controverted by Tsong-kha-pa relates to the teachings of a Chan Master who, hundreds of years before, had taught in Tibet. He is known in Chinese as Hwa-Shang and during his stay in Tibet great numbers of Tantrikas followed him. Some Tibetan and Indian monks were concerned about this and therefore invited the Indian Pundit-bhikshu Kamalasila to come to Tibet and dispute with the Chan teacher. This resulted in the Counsil of Lhasa, after which, due to the king's instructions, Hwa-Shang had to flee away leaving only one shoe behind in Tibet.

Hwa-Shang taught that Chan emphasizes non-discrimination. Indeed it teaches that if discrimination is clung to, then there is no possibility of Enlightenment. He brought quotations from a hundred Sutras and Shastras to support his assertion.

Tsong-kha-pa objected: If there is no discrimination, how can one investigate the truth? And if this is not done, then how will there be any practice of samapatti? We must admit that this is very reasonable.

In the final highest truth there is no discrimination, all is ultimately Sunyata. But the great Geshe's mistake was to regard Chan as a Yana of Cause, which it is not, being truly a Yana of Consequence. I have also written "An essay on Tsong-kha-pa's Lam-rim" in which both sides are harmonized.

Again, the Chan Master said: If one meets an Enlightened Master, then immediately one may realize Chan (which belongs to the final Truth and not to immature Samapatti). But Tsong-kha-pa said that this could apply only to a sage and not to neophytes. The Chan, however, of one who attains in this way is just like that of a sage and never again resembles the neophyte's samapatti. If he admitted that it is the same as Chan of sages, then he should confess that the non-discrimination of the Chanist is quite right. Chan never used a common meditative way such as samatha or samapatti. If it did, then discriminations to investigate the truth would certainly be necessary, as Tsong-kha-pa emphasized.

I have often had the thought that if Tsong-kha-pa was an emanation (tulku, nirmanakaya) of Manjusri, why do his teaching doctrines conflict with those of the Old Party? Once I was in Dhi-Khong-Lu-Ho hermitage and in my meditative light I saw upon my head the light body of Manjusri and again saw that he was transmuted into the form of Tsong-kha-pa also in a light body. Since then I do believe that he is the emanation of the Bodhisattva. Then I tried to find out what were Tsong-kha-pa's reasons for refuting the doctrines of the Old Party.

In his time many conditions were bad among the old schools, with married teachers living a life of eating and drinking, having married just for pleasure (as contrasted with taking a dakini for Tantric practice), and even bhikshus were not properly adhering to their rules. In various ways, evil men saying that they were Tantric Teachers, took advantage of the doctrine for gain and worldly pleasure. Tsong-kha-pa determined to save them. We should all be very, very grateful to him because without him there would be no Buddha-dharma in Tibet at the present time. He emphasized practice just as the old schools did but also emphasized that there were very many necessary preparations which took a long time to perform before practice. One should not begin actual practice until these preparations are complete so that one is truly ready-- such is his teaching.

In this way he taught the greater importance of merits to begin with and laid less emphasis upon wisdom, whereas the latter has always seemed more essential to the older schools.

He also said that the only difference between a Buddha and an Arhat is that the Buddha has more merits than the Arhat, however, I think, the latter is also deficient in Sunyata realization. He taught that Sunyata is always the same in Hinayana and Mahayana.

Certainly we should not directly practice Mahamudra. First collect merits, and after that, practice the first, second and third yogas, coming finally to the fourth. If Tsong-kha-pa had not shown so clearly in his teachings, as in his "Stages of the Path," that we should go step by step, each one the foundation for the one following, then I doubt whether there would now be any Buddhism in Tibet and so we must again express our gratitude.

But I do not agree with him that Hinayana and Mahayana teachings on Sunyata are the same. In the two yanas, the purport of Sunyata is the same but its power of penetration of good and evil differs. The Sunyata of the Hinayana is like a river upon which only the smaller boats can sail, for it is lacking in depth. But rivers lead down to the sea and this is the voidness taught in the Mahayana. It may be compared to a great ocean upon which even vessels of the largest size may float without obstruction.

All these conflicts are settled by our practice of the Three-Ways-In-One system of meditations outlined here. Imagine the whole system of Buddhism as a length of five feet. The Theravada Buddhist cuts off 1/5 and throws the rest away, the Mahayanist keeps 2/5, the Japanese schools 3/5 and the Tibetan new party 4/5. None of these groups are studying the whole system. That is why I emphasize the three-yanas-in-one; here "one" means the whole system. Before we finish this section, one more nonsensical dispute should be mentioned.

E. In China there have been many schools. Each one has tried to make a division of the Buddha's teaching to account for the numerous and apparently diverse methods found within it. In South China, three schools tried to do this and in the North there were seven, all these before the arising of T'en-tai. It was only one monk, Fa-min of the T'ang dynasty who did make a division into two: of the exoteric or Nirmanakaya teachings and the esoteric or those originating from the Sambhogakaya. But in general, nobody heeded the Vajrayana, and instead of incorporating it, left it to form a separate party. All these teachers making their divisions did so with only one idea in mind, pride in their own school, and with only one object, to raise it above the others. This, we can say, is just sectarianism. So we find each school proclaiming one or two scriptures as the highest teaching of the Buddha: the T'en-tai school says it is the Lotus Sutra, but the Hua-yen school announces the Avatamsaka, and so on.

We can settle all these disputes in a very nice way, by our practice of the Three-Yanas-in-One. All conflicts between them are thereby swept away.

II

The second reason that we should stress this Three-in-One system is to emphasize to the utmost the development of the Buddha's doctrine itself. If we wish to make any division of teachings, it should be according to known historical facts--an objective division, not a subjective one based on our own preferences or giving advantage to our own school. We should not follow ideas such as those of the Hua-yen who said that only a day or two after the Sambodhi of Gautama, he preached the Avatamsaka Sutra and then, since no one understood, gave a "beginners? course in the Agama Sutras. Who can prove this? And does not this classification rather glorify the school which made it? We should not do this.

A. The Buddha first preached to the Five Bhikshus in the Deer Park near Benares. This is according to all historical accounts which admit that the Sutra called the Turning of the Wheel of the Law (Dharmachakrapravartana) was the first taught by the Buddha. After the Lord's passing away, history again records (this is not a matter of our own imagining) that 450 years passed before Bhadanta Asvaghosa revealed and established the Mahayana. Still later when the Mahayana was flourishing, the Siddha Nagarjuna obtained from the Iron Pagoda in South India the Vajrayana teachings; so says the Chinese and Japanese tradition. But the Tibetans say that the heavens opened and the Vajrayana scriptures then descended. Even amongst them we find the old and new schools, with the Kalacakra (Wheel of Time) teachings admittedly the latest.

The sequence of teachings is shown in history and there are no good reasons for us to turn these matters to our own advantage, this way or that. Our classification should only show the unity of the whole tradition making clear that the three yanas are aspects of the one Way. Certainly, as a believer and practitioner of the Three-in-One, I believe the Buddha preached the Hinayana personally in his Nirmanakaya, the Vajrayana in his Sambhogakaya and the Mahayana partly in person while alive on this earth, while partly through scriptures derived from his Dharmakaya manifested by his outflowing bodies (nisyandakaya) such as Asvaghosa and Nagarjuna.

B. The second point to underline here is the inherent nature of the various teachings.

The Buddha knew well enough that people love worldly things, therefore he first gave teachings on such subjects as the Four Fundamental Mindfulnesses, the need for renunciation, the stress laid on morality, and the fact that pain and pleasure are inextricably bound together, the reason for this, and the way out of this tangle as taught in the Four Noble Truths and by the Eight-Fold Path. All these factors were not merely taught by him but lived and realized in his life. Especially is this true of renunciation which he gave a wonderful example of by leading the life of a Bhikshu.

When renunciation is well-developed and one knows the pain associated with the world, then the only thing lacking is the aspiration to save others--the Bodhicitta--and the thorough comprehension of the Sunyata. Hence establishment of the Mahayana is necessary.

Those following the Mahayana Great Way must spend much time helping all sentient beings, and although the Bodhisattva precepts say that wisdom-beings should meditate three times a day, such a one cannot find much time to practice meditation due to his concern with universal salvation.

So comes the preaching of the third Yana. Regarding the most important principle of Sunyata, it is not completely developed in the Hinayana, and it is only realized psychologically in the Mahayana, thus the Vajrayana must be developed where Sunyata is understood in the complete psychophysical sense.

Such a sequence of teachings as this we must have and then we can get Full Enlightenment

III

We ourselves are directly concerned with the third reason for emphasizing the Three-in-One system for we should follow the order of these vehicles in our meditation practice and unite all three of them within our own realization. Our Dharma is thus shown as Three-Vehicles-in-One.

A. First meditate on the Truth of Duhkha (sorrow), then a thorough renunciation will follow. Although some desire is destroyed at this stage, of the two inner obstacles, only the veil of sorrows (klesavarana) is destroyed but the veil of knowledge (jneyavarna) is retained.

B. From this, one should go on to practice the complementary Mahayana teachings of the Paramitas and realization of Sunyata with regard to both the person and things. After such practice, both inner and outer obstacles are easily destroyed. The klesa-veil and most of the jneya-veil are then torn down.

C. But defilements both jneya and klesa are of two kinds, acquired (already destroyed) and innate, and the latter are very hard to meditate away. While the former are specifically the psychical energies, the latter pertain to the body and it is very difficult to still the subtle movements they cause in the mind, and it is also very hard to subdue their ultra-fine energies. It will indeed take a long time to do this through the Mahayana teachings; it is possible however by the methods of practice given one in the Third Initiation of Anuttarayoga to rid oneself completely of these very subtle obstacles by the discovery of Innate-Wisdom, only possible through the Vajrayana.

---

[Home][Back to main list][Back to Chenian][Go to Dr. Lin's works] [Related works:  Buddhist Meditation Systematic and Practical Chapter VI 　 佛教禪定實修體系 第六章]