Heze Shenhui, founder of the Hezezong (荷泽宗) branch of Chan, is claimed to be a student of Hui Neng (638-713). A later biography states that Heze Shenhui met Huineng when Heze Shenhui was only 14 years old, although it is likely that Heze Shenhui first encountered Huineng sometime later, between 701 and 709.
Shenhui may have studied briefly with Shenxiu of the Northern branch of Chan before studying with Huineng in the south of China.
Though not for us a noble figure, he influenced the history of Chan Buddhism with three important contributions:
(1) He augmented the myth that Chan existed in India and was taken to China by Bodhidharma, thus generating for himself a lineage, separating the original Chan Masters from the historical credit deserved and limiting the possibility that their works would be understood by future generations.
(2) He created the myth that Huineng was the one and only sixth patriarch in an unbroken line of succession originating with the Buddha.
(3) He was without doubt an important instigator of the sectarian division of Chan generating an incorrect and unjust division into a Northern "gradual" tradition and a Southern "sudden" tradition. The objective, apart from setting himself up as the seventh patriarch, excluded from history Shenxiu.
Heze Shenhui began teaching seven years after Huineng's death in 713.
He did not propose seated meditation, which separated him more from Shenxiu, and his teaching style consisted of eloquent and strong sermons, though he is seldom quoted in Chan documents.
However, we are less interested in his historical manipulations than in how any of his teachings direct us to a meditation that gives us more information on possible meditations and even connections with the model of Huineng.
Shenhui stressed the Prajnaparamita literature, which included the Diamond Sutra, echoing Huineng's disposition to focus upon this text.
His central themes involve wu-nien (no-thought), which is a freedom from conceptualization. Of necessity therefore his Contemplation must pass through the Last Conceptualization either in the natural style of "living within that last conceptualization" to pass beyond it and then unite the new non-cognitive experiences with cognition.
Other components of his path were, as with Huineng, the wisdom (prajna) and emptiness (sunyata) teachings of the Diamond Sutra; the unity of wisdom and prajna; and, perhaps most important, seeing and knowing one’s Buddha Nature.
Strangely in opposition to the idea of an unaided direct experience leading to Awakening, he advocated the recitation and study of Sutras to aid in the quest for awakening.
If indeed his Contemplations were directed either at the Diamond Sutra form of seeing "Emptiness" or "Seeing and knowing one’s Buddha Nature," how did that support his claim to be in a direct line of understanding with Huineng, separating him from Shenxiu's model?
A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF EMPTINESS IN THE DIAMOND SUTRA
While certainly declaring that nothing has a different and separate existence, if we really examine the Diamond Sutra we find that the emphasis is upon the unity and divergence within emptiness.
From Huineng's viewpoint, there being no real individuals as all is conceptual, the divergence which we see in individual differences is just an illusory divergence which clear comprehension, as a great utility, creates from the whole undifferentiated apparent existence of human life. Thus Huineng directed his life towards the benefit of the total human situation, while using the divergence to help individuals.
This separted him from a mundane gladness and benevolence.
This is effectively the true Masculine Principle expression of the Buddha Nature.
The correct and natural Contemplation upon the Buddha Nature automatically must include this experience as an outcome. It is possible, being as generous as possible in this evaluation of Shenhui, that he saw this clearly.
If that is so, then that would explain his reticence to accept the model of Shenxiu.
Whether or not he saw that Huineng's life, in and of itself, was a total experience of the Last Conceptualization of the Buddha Nature we cannot say, but in any case such a way of "living Gladness and Benevolent Affect" was far from the natural inclination and temperament of Shenhui.
CONTEMPLATION UPON THE BUDDHA NATURE
Remember that Shenxiu's Sitting Contemplation upon Buddha Nature
consisted of the following:
Initial Concentration
Establishing the Becoming of Consciousness (Total Qi) and "settling the
mind in that state by watching its purity".
Dwelling with the Last Conceptualization of the no-mind and no-action, permitting the transition into the Non-Cognitive direct experiences.
Shenxiu held that thought (thinking and ideation) prevented Awakening.
He declared that “Not thinking, not pondering, non-examination,
non-apprehension of an object--this is the immediate (liberation) access"
Finally, "the discernment of the liberation".
The argument against this method by Shenhui was:
The initial access was "freezing the mind."
The attainment of the purity of Defensive Qi was "fixing the mind."
No-mind and no-action of supra-mundane insight was "activation to illustrate the external."
The Discernment from memory was "Concentrating to realize the internal."
Shenhui said, "all this is 'hindrance to bodhi' (awakening)" and swept aside all forms of sitting in meditation 坐禪, zuochan (tso-ch'an), including the present zazen practiced by the Soto model, as entirely unnecessary.
He said: "If it is right to sit in meditation, then why should Vimalakirti scold Sariputta for sitting in meditation in the woods? Here in my school, to have no thoughts is meditation-sitting, and to see one's original nature is dhyana (Chan)."
SHENXIU'S CONTEMPLATION
We have the best view of what Shenxiu's contemplations were by looking at the teachings and contemplations of Heshang Moheyan.
Moheyan taught the "all-at-once" sudden gate as "gazing-at-mind", ganxin, and "no examining", buguan... "no-thought no-examining", bu-su bu-guan... It is the original East Mountain Dharma Gate teaching.
The question is, if this is radically different than that which Shenhui was teaching.
Certainly the system was one of "Traditional Sitting" Contemplation, while Shenhui's was "Sitting of the mind". We must conclude then that the sitting preparation would also be included as part of the criticism as a "gradual" paradigm.
Moheyan, a Dharma Heir of Shenxiu, claimed that when one gave up all conceptions, an automatic, all-at-once attainment of virtue resulted.
He taught that there were two independent practices, the direct and the gradual, a concession to human psychology and scriptural tradition.
The former was an “internal” practice to liberate the self of wisdom and the second an “external” practice to liberate others as expedient means.
Shenxiu believed that actually performing good or evil acts, as conceptions, led to transmigration rather than liberation. Now this puts his position on daily practice on first glance diametrically opposed to Huineng, who was imbued totally within the four sublime states.
But Huineng was not impulsed by concepts, but by his Buddha Nature.
Nevertheless he conceded that practices such as the “perfection of morality”, studying the sutras and teachings of the masters and cultivating meritorious actions were appropriate.
SUMMARIZING SHENXIU'S POSITION
Let us then conclude Shenxiu's position by re-affirming clearly that his Last Conceptualization, the immediate (liberation) access, was setting the Buddha Nature as being "Not thinking, not pondering, non-examination, non-apprehension of an object."
We can perhaps critically note that his approach was that of Vitakka-Vicara, that is, using REFLECTION to reach the ABSORPTION Experiences of Cognition. If that is the case then indeed an issue may be made of that point claiming that it was not Direct Access through experience, which is the Direct Chan approach.
For with political expediency, paranoic tendency and perhaps the strong passion of his temperament, Shenhui may have reached the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons.
SHENHUI'S CONTEMPLATION
If it is correct that Shenhui's contemplation was not of the Vitakka-Vicara variety, then what was his approach to the Last Conceptualization that gave immediate access to the Last Cognitive Conceptualization experience of the Buddha Nature?
He stated: "Here in my school, to have no thoughts is meditation-sitting, and to see one's original nature is dhyana."
Shenxiu used "Not thinking, not pondering, non-examination, non-apprehenion of an object."
There is no substantial difference except that theoretically, at least, Shenhui did not REFLECT upon "No thought" but sought immediately the direct Cognitive Conceptualization of the Experience of the Buddha nature.
How did he accomplish this?
It would perhaps be better to ask, since his comportment does not suggest in any way that he had achieved awakening, how could one accomplish this?
When Huineng, according to the legend, left Hungjen after six years at hs East Mountain monastery, he arrived at the Fa-xing temple and met Master Yin-tsung, who lectured on the most important Nirvana Sutra. He studied the sutra there for one year before leaving.
It is this sutra which here forms the base for the understanding of the Contemplation of Function based upon Huineng's teaching.
Remember that this Contemplation of Function was not a formal practice of Huineng, who required no Last Conceptualization by virtue of his living and dwelling fully in that state.
Kasyapa said to the Buddha: "O World-Honoured One! Is there Self in the 25 existences or not?"
The Buddha said: "O good man! "Self" means "Tathagatagarbha". Every being has Buddha-Nature. This is the (True) Self."
So we can begin by declaring that the Buddha Nature is according to Buddha the TRUE SELF. Is that the Identity-free TRUE SELF of the "right hemisphere" that can be encountered by Essence Contemplations? It is a state of Observing?
On the Nature of the Tathagata
You may remember that 慧 遠 Huiyuan (523-592), a Dharma heir of Dao-an, became interested in the relationship between the Buddha-Nature as it was presented in the Nirvana sutra (涅槃經, Nièpánjīng) and the concept of an "originally pure mind", which now in Chan we know of as the ninth consciousness, not the eighth, with its source in the right hemisphere.
The first important step by Huiyuan was took the distinction he made between his "Buddha-nature that knows", and the "Buddha-nature that is known" in his Essentials of the Mahayana (大乘要, Da cheng yi-chang).
The "Buddha-nature that knows" is the "mind of true consciousness" that is capable of awakening to Buddha-nature through the elimination of all Identity stains.
The "Buddha-nature that is known" is that of the Nature of Dharma, which can be described as the Uncarved Wood, the direct access to which is attained through contemplations by way of the Ultimate Conceptualizations of Emptiness, Awareness and the Living Force, which correspond to access to the direct experiences on Undifferentiated Form, Essence and Function.
Here we are concerned with entry by FUNCTION.
When the scriptures call the highest teaching "Buddha-nature," or when they call the middle-way "Buddha-nature," they are referring to the "nature that is known", which Huiyuan explicitly declares penetrates everywhere, both within and without.
The Function Contemplation then begins by establishing the Direct Cognitive Experience of the "Buddha-nature that knows", the "mind of true consciousness."
How can one directly estblish an experience of the "MIND OF TRUE CONSCIOUSNESS" without Shenxiu's REFLECTION?