Seng-Chao's Treatises - Part 1 [You're welcome if you dare.]

[bkadoctaj]

Translated by Wing-Tsit Chan in "A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy":

The Immutability of Things

That birth and death alternate, that winter and summer repeatedly succeed each other, and that all things move on like a current is an ordinary belief of men. But I think that it is not the case.

The Fang-kuang ching (Scripture of the Shedding of the Light of the Buddha) says, "There is no dharma [thing] that goes or comes, or moves to change its position." As we investigate the meaning of not moving, does it mean to cast aside motion (activity) in order to seek rest (tranquillity)? No, rest must be sought right in motion. As rest must be sought right in motion, therefore there is eternal rest in spite of motion, and as motion is not to be cast aside in order to seek rest, therefore although there is rest, it is never separated from motion. This being the case, motion and rest are from the beginning not different, but deluded people consider them to be dissimilar. Consequently, the true words [of Buddhism] are obstructed by their competitive arguments and the orthodox path is deflected by their fondness of heterodoxy. Thus it is not easy to speak about the ultimate [relation] between rest and motion. Why? Because when one speaks the truth, he goes against the common folks, but if he follows them, he will violate the truth. When one violates the truth, he will be deluded about the [original] nature [of things] and will be forever lost, and when he goes against the common folks, his words will be insipid and tasteless. Consequently, when the average type of men [hear the truth] they half believe in it and half doubt it, and the lowest type of men clap their hands (in glee) and ignore it completely. Indeed, the [original] nature of things is something near at hand but difficult to know. But I cannot help setting my mind on the relation between motion and rest. I dare not say that my ideas are necessarily true, but I shall try to discuss them.

The Tao-hsing ching (Scripture on Learning and Practicing the Way) says, "In reality dharmas do not come from anywhere or go anywhere." The Chung lun (Treatise on the Middle Doctrine) says, "From one's own point of view one knows that a thing has gone away, but what is [thought to have] gone does not arrive anywhere." Both of these show that rest must be sought right in motion. From this we know that it is clear that things are immutable.

What other people mean by motion is that because things of the past [have gone away] and do not reach the present, therefore they are said to have moved and are not at rest (continue to exist). What I mean by rest is that, similarly, because things of the past do not reach the present, therefore they may be said to be at rest and have not moved. [Other people believe] things move but are not at rest because [past things] have not come down (continue to exist) to the present. [I believe] things are at rest and do not move because [past things] have not gone anywhere. Thus the situation [that past things have neither come to the present nor have gone anywhere] remains the same but our viewpoints are different. People who go against [the truth] will call [that situation] a barrier but those who follow [the truth] will call it a passage. If one has found the right way, what is there to obstruct him?

It is sad that people have been deluded in their views for such a long time. Truth is right before their eyes but they do not realize it. They already know that past things cannot come [to the present] but still maintain that present things can go (pass on). As past things cannot come [to the present], where do present things go? Why? If we look for past things in the past, we find that they are never nonexistent in the past, but if we search for past things in the present, we find that they are never existent there. That they are never existent in the present shows that they never come, and that they are never nonexistent in the past shows that they do not go away from it. If we turn our attention to investigate the present, we know that the present, too, does not go anywhere. This means that past things by their very nature exist in the past and have not gone there from the present, and present things by their nature exist in the present and have not come here from the past. This is why Confucius said, "Hui, [every day] I see something new. [Although you and I have been associated with each other for a long time], in a single moment you are no longer the same as before." Thus it is clear that [past] things do not come and [present] things do not go. As there is not even a subtle sign of going or returning, what thing can there be that can move? This being the case, the raging storm that uproots mountains is always tranquil (at rest), rivers rushing to the sea do not flow, the fleeting forced moving in all directions and pushing about do not move, and the sun and moon revolving in their orbits do not turn round. What is there to wonder about any more?

Alas, the Sage has said, "Man's life passes away quickly, more quickly than the stream current." Therefore by realizing the impermanence of things the Buddha's ordinary disciples (śrāvaka, those who attain to their own salvation by hearing the Buddha's teaching) attain enlightenment, and the Buddhas-for-themselves (pratyekabuddha, who attain enlightenment by their own exertions), by realizing that causes [which make an entity a dependent being] can be removed, become identified with the real. If all motions (activities) of things are not changes, why should they seek after [the principle] of change in oder to ascend the steps of enlightenment? [However], if we again investigate the saying of the Sage, we shall find its meaning to be subtle, hidden, and unfathomable. Things seem to move but are really at rest, and they seem to go away but really remain. Such things can only be understood by the spirit and cannot be discovered in ordinary facts. Therefore when the Sage said that things go, he did not mean that they really go; he merely wanted to prevent ordinary thoughts, and when he said that things remain in the same state, he did not mean that they really remain; he merely wanted to discard what ordinary people call the passing (impermanence) of things. He did not mean to say that by going is meant something being sent away and by remaining something being retained. Therefore the Ch'eng-chü ching (Scripture on Producing and Completing the Light) says, "The bodhisattva, living in the midst of people who believe in permanence, propagates the doctrine of impermanence. And the Mo-ho-yen lun (Treatise of Great Wisdom) says, "Dharmas do not move. They neither go anywhere nor come to anywhere." All these are intended to lead the common folks to reach enlightenment. The two different sayings aim at the same thing. Shall we say that because they differ in language they are contradictory in objectives? Although permanence is mentioned, it does not mean remaining in the same state, and although going is mentioned, it does not mean instability. Since dharmas are not mutable, they are always at rest even though they have gone, and because they do not remain, they are always gone even though they are at rest. As they are always gone although at rest, they do not mutate while being gone, and as they are always at rest while they are gone, they do not remain while at rest. When Chuang Tzu said that [it is impossible to] hide a mountain [in a lake for at midnight a strong man may come and carry it away on his back] and when Confucius stood by the stream [and said, "It passes on like this, never ceasing day and night"], both expressed the feeling that what is gone cannot be retained. Did they say that [things] can cast aside the present and pass on? Thus we see that the minds of the sages are different from the views of the common people. Why? They say that a man possesses the same body in youth and in old age and that the years pass on but do not realize that the body follows. A young ascetic seeking Nirvāṇa left his family and when his hair had turned white, returned home. When his neighbors saw him and asked, "Is the man of the past still living?" he replied, "I look like the man of the past but I am not he." The neighbors were all startled and rejected his words. [When Chuang Tzu] said that a strong man comes and carries it away on his back but and ignorant man does not know this, this is the meaning.

The Tathāgata (Buddha), in accordance with the obstruction in the common people's views, speaks appropriate words to dispel their delusions. He exercises his true mind which transcends any duality and preaches various doctrines which need not be the same [but which vary according to circumstances]. The words of the Sage are indeed conflicting but never different [from the Middle Path]. Therefore when he talks about truth, he speaks in terms of [things being] immutable, but when he wants to lead the ordinary folk, he talks in terms of [things] moving on like a current. Although there are a thousand paths and a variety of tunes, they all converge at the same point.

But people who rely on the letter, when they hear of immutability, believe that things of the past cannot reach the present, and when they hear of things moving on like a current, believe that things of the present can reach the past. Since they have already made the distinction of past and present, how can things pass on between them? To say that [things] have gone does not necessarily mean that they have gone away. Both the past and the present exist permanently because they do not move. To say that [things] go does not necessarily mean that they really go, for the past cannot be reached from the present, since [the past] does not come [to the present]. As [things] do not come, there cannot be any shifting between past and present, and since they do not move, every thing, in accordance with its nature, remains for one period of time. This being the case, although the various books differ in language and the many schools differ in theory, if we find out where they converge, how can different expressions delude us?

What people call remaining, I call passing on, whereas what people call passing on, I call remaining. Although passing on and remaining are different, ultimately they are the same. This is why it is said in the scripture, "Straight words seem to be their opposite. Who will believe them?" There is reason for this saying.

What shall we say? People seek the past in the present. [Since it is not found in the present], they say that it does not remain. I seek the present in the past. [Since it is not in the past], I know that it does not go anywhere. If the present passes on to the past, then there should be the present in the past. If the past reaches to the present, then there should be the present in the past. If the past reaches to the present, then there should be the past in the present. Since there is no past in the present, we know that it does not come, and since there is no present in the past, we know that it does not go. As neither does the past reach to the present nor does the present reach to the past, every thing, according to its nature, remains for only one period of time. What thing is there to come and go?

This being the case, although the four seasons are as fleeting as the wind and although the polar star revolves with lightning speed, if we understand the least bit [that things do not move], we will realize that, quick as they are, they do not move.

For the above reason, the merit of the Tathāgata continues for countless generations and exists permanently, and his truth remains firmer after having gone through a hundred aeons. The completion of a mountain lies in the first basket, and arriving at the destination of a long journey depends on the first step. The reason, surely, is that merit is immortal.

Since merit is immortal, it does not change though it is in the past. Since it does not change, it is immutable. And since it is immutable, it is clear that [merit remains] tranquil. Therefore the scripture says, "Although the three calamities [of fire, water, and wind] extend everywhere, the merit remains tranquil." How true are these words! Why? The effect does not exist together with causes, because the effect is produced by the causes. Since the result is produced by the causes, the causes could not have been extinguished in the past. Since the result and the causes do not exist simultaneously, the causes do not come to the present. As they neither perish nor come to the present, the conclusion that they are immutable is clear. Why should we be deluded about [things] going or remaining any more, or be undecided as to whether [things] move or are at rest? Thus even if heaven and earth turn upside down, it does not mean that they are in motion. If one's spirit is harmonized with things as they are found, one can realize [the principle of the immutability of things] right where he is.

[seahag]

yawwwwwn. oh sorry, it just seems quite crass to discuss such things.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by seahag

yawwwwwn. oh sorry, it just seems quite crass to discuss such things.

I suppose your inverted thought would be essentially, that it is so interesting you are below considering it.

[seahag]

or could it be i don't see the point of being caught in endless webs of the barrier of language, just to prove that we are 'these' human beings with a theory and an understanding.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by seahag

or could it be i don't see the point of being caught in endless webs of the barrier of language, just to prove that we are 'these' human beings with a theory and an understanding.

Endless webs is all language is. You got Seng-Chao's point apparently. Lose the words.

[cowsgomoou]

I agree to what he says about rest and motion being tied together... but however i beleive that by being in a state of rest (not moving) you can more readily sense the motion around you than if you were to be moving... (mind you i only read the first couple paragraphs so far)

i also think that most "philosophers" wether right or wrong... or even if they are just thinking about something and not trying to be "right" or "wrong"... should not think that they need to use big/confusing strands of words to get their point across... be short and to the point do not parse words... tell people how you really feel

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by cowsgomoou

I agree to what he says about rest and motion being tied together... but however i beleive that by being in a state of rest (not moving) you can more readily sense the motion around you than if you were to be moving... (mind you i only read the first couple paragraphs so far)

i also think that most "philosophers" wether right or wrong... or even if they are just thinking about something and not trying to be "right" or "wrong"... should not think that they need to use big/confusing strands of words to get their point across... be short and to the point do not parse words... tell people how you really feel

Yeah, that's his point. People will just disagree if you do that. To make them think you have to say the opposite of what they would expect. Catch them at every turn, you might say.

[cowsgomoou]

mk just read the whole thing and all i can say is damn that blew my mind...

[ArtemisRain]

I love philosophy. TY for the read!

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by ArtemisRain

I love philosophy. TY for the read!

No problem. This guy can fuck people up harder than acid.

[HighGrowMan]

Originally Posted by seahag

yawwwwwn. oh sorry, it just seems quite crass to discuss such things.

It is certainly far from crass .

I think this is the reason why there was a saying, "Even a foolish man appears wise if he holds his tongue."

Different things excite different people, for different reasons. What might seem crass and pointless to you now, might not be so pointless when your life takes some unexpected turns and you find yourself looking for answers. (as I picture you as a 350lb man sitting watching a baseball game and eating 3 large hot dogs w/ a soft drink and a porno under your arm)

Philosophy may not be as immediately gratifying as porno and fast food, but when your lying awake at night trying to be the sexy star on tv, and thinking about killing yourself, maybe try and sit down and feed your soul for a minute.

Some people go through life thinking that the harder that they work the further that they can get. Some people go through life thinking that the harder that they plan the further that they can get.

Some people go through life and finally realize that it is not the work or the choices that you make in life that get you further, it is your state of being while you are at rest, that allows you to grow and become.

[obejii]

This was Truly inspiring, i must thank you with every fiber of my mind for my mind has blown and now exists in four dimensional space....it's trippy...and scary. but seriously i am inspired to rest or become motionless before every motion as to feed my soul the knowlegde of every motion.

[seahag]

I think this is the reason why there was a saying, "Even a foolish man appears wise if he holds his tongue."

Different things excite different people, for different reasons. What might seem crass and pointless to you now, might not be so pointless when your life takes some unexpected turns and you find yourself looking for answers. (as I picture you as a 350lb man sitting watching a baseball game and eating 3 large hot dogs w/ a soft drink and a porno under your arm)

Philosophy may not be as immediately gratifying as porno and fast food, but when your lying awake at night trying to be the sexy star on tv, and thinking about killing yourself, maybe try and sit down and feed your soul for a minute.

Some people go through life thinking that the harder that they work the further that they can get. Some people go through life thinking that the harder that they plan the further that they can get.

Some people go through life and finally realize that it is not the work or the choices that you make in life that get you further, it is your state of being while you are at rest, that allows you to grow and become.

as convincing as your trying to be, your comments are off point.

instead of proving how wise you may be, did the possibility of differing views on subjects come to mind? read my posts before you analyze.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by seahag

as convincing as your trying to be, your comments are off point.

instead of proving how wise you may be, did the possibility of differing views on subjects come to mind? read my posts before you analyze.

Did the possibility of different views of the same thing come to mind?