Linji
How to become free. Linji and ethics.
In philosophical as well as in religious writings, the common existence is often depicted as slavery or, more generally, as entanglement, and those philosophical and religious writings are supposed to offer some program, how to become free from the slavery or entanglement. In different ages and in different places several strategies have been proposed, and I would like to describe two of them. Broadly speaking, one focuses on doing something and the other on undoing something. To exemplify these two different methods, I have chosen two texts from two different ages and cultures: first, Plato from 4th century BC Greece, and second, Linjilu, a chan-buddhist text from 12th century AD China that purportedly relates happenings of 9th century AD.[1]
Plato’s effort
The paradigmatic metaphor of the soul’s progress in Plato is his allegory of the cave in his dialogue “Republic” (Peri tes politeias). There common people are depicted as being similar to slaves in a cave, fixed into one position and deemed to watch the changing shadows before them, that allegorically stand for the happenings of the sensual world. There is some underground effort and competition going on: who can predict better the shadows. But it is illusionary, since they know nothing of the causes of the shadows, neither the things themselves nor the originals of those things, i.e. the ideas.
But there is always somebody who is outside the cave, who comes back and frees somebody from the cave.[2] The freed prisoner is forced to go up from a steep and uneven path to the sunlight that represents the light of the reason. There s/he has to go through another process of effort and study, this time working on ideas of ever growing universality, rising finally to the Idea of the Good, that is compared to the Sun that gives light to everything else there is.
At a third stage the person is forced to go down again to the cave, to teach the prisoners there (or to “illuminate” them). Yet again s/he has to accustom him/herself with the shadowy realm, in order to recall the prisoners’ way of thinking, while at the same time maintaining his/her knowledge acquired above the ground, i.e. knowledge of the ideas.
So, we have three processes of learning and two effortful journeys, one from the shadowy cave to the sunlight, and the other down again to the cave. The person who goes through these stages can be called a wholly free human being (because prisoners in the cave are not free, and those remaining above the ground and not returning to the cave, are not wholly humans). There are several sudden, involuntary and painful events: (1) in the cave, when the prisoner that has been set free first sees the things and the fire that had cast the shadows he saw before, (2) above the ground, the suddenly blinding sunlight, (3) again under the ground, a new blinding due to the lack of light. But the main focus is on gradual painful effort between them, that is, going up and down again, and most importantly, learning the ideas above the ground. The question here is to develop one’s intellect and intellectual understanding of things, abstracted from bodily and sensory aspects.
I believe this allegory is still very much behind our idea of learning and education, when our teachers try to make the students “see” the ideas from the fields of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology or grammar.
Linji’s uneffort
We find an altogether different focus in Linjilu, where one of the key notions is wushi (無事)[3] which can be translated as “not doing”, “to have nothing to do”, “not to bother oneself”, “not to trouble oneself”, “not to be engaged in affairs”, etc. This is originally a daoist notion that appears both in Laozi (§§ 48, 57 and 63) and in Zhuangzi. Here, the path to freedom is conceived not so much as doing something, but as undoing something, viz. undoing common engagement in worldly affairs and mental attachment to them.
This is exemplified by the famous passage where Linji[4] explains his pedagogical strategies:
“Sometimes I take away the person but do not take away the surroundings;
sometimes I take away the surroundings but do not take away the person;
sometimes I take away both person and surroundings;
sometimes I take away neither person nor surroundings.” (Discourses, 10).
In the first strategy he cancels subjective determinations, in the second one the objective determinations, in the third one both subjective and objective determinations, and the fourth is the result of various undoings and indicates a good correlation of inner and outer, where there is no need to cancel anything.[5]
Linji puts much greater stress on importance of sudden changes in the spiritual progress. He employs various synonyms for the “moment” or “instant”: the buddhist notion of ksana (chànà 刹那), “moment” (xu1yu2 须臾), “now” (jin1 今), “present” (xiànjin1 现今), “this time” (ci3shi2 此时), “present time” (jin1shi2 今时) etc. He opposes it expressly to duration or span of time (shi2jie2 时節): “For the Chan school, understanding (...) is instantaneous, now, not a matter of time!” (Discourses 13, see Linji p. 13). So undoing is not a determination of time, but an interruption of enduring processes, a leap in understanding or awareness.
The logic of undoing
I suppose the logic of doing is more familiar to us, because we have been impregnated by it at school, in sports, at work and elsewhere; so it might be interesting to look more deeply into the logic of undoing, as Linji expresses it.
Of course, one could put up the logical objection that even while undoing, you still do something, namely the undoing. But this objection is merely logical, because in practice the two attitudes involve very different intentions. The undoing or not-troubling-oneself involves the insight that there is actually nothing to do to become “free”, that one need not “do” anything special. This is the understanding that the everyday mind is already the Buddha-mind: Linji encourages his listeners with the simple words “Just be ordinary” (ping1chang2 平常), as Linji puts it (Disc. 8, p. 10, D 11, p 11, D 12, p 11) and says that the “ordinary mind is the Way” (平常心是道) (Disc 17, p. 18).
We need not strive for enlightenment, and this striving (or doing) even drives us further away from our “goal”. To quote Linji: “If you seek buddha you lose buddha, if you seek the Way you lose the Way, if you seek the patriarchs you lose the patriarchs” (D 22, p. 31), or in a more radical wording, “Whatever you encounter, either within or without, slay it at once. On meeting a buddha slay the buddha, on meeting your parents slay your parents, on meeting your kinsman slay your kinsman.” (D 18, p. 22)
The point is that we are enlightened from the very beginning, as Linji stresses several times in his discourses: “your own present activities do not differ from those of the patriarch-buddhas” (D 18, p. 22) or “your own present activities do not differ from those of the patriarch-buddhas” (D 18, p. 22) or “your body and mind are not different from those of the patriarch-buddhas” (D 20, p. 28) or “Your minds and Mind do not differ – this is called (your) living patriarch” (D 17, p. 18).
The intuition of this fact is a matter of a durationless moment. We already mentioned the abundance of notions designating momentariness or instantaniousness in Linji. But there is an even stronger link between thought and moment:
“The pure light in a single thought of yours – this is the darmakaya buddha within your own house.
The nondiscriminating light in a single thought of yours – this is the sambhogakaya buddha within your own house.
The nondifferentiating light in a single thought of yours – this is the nirmanakaya buddha within your own house.”
The phrase “a single thought” yinianxin 一念心, graphically represents in its very form the idea it is meant to convey, since the character for “thought” is composed of two parts, “now” (今) and “mind/heart” (心) – that is, the mind that you have now in this very moment.
Faith
But then, one could ask, if one has undone the strivings and doings and simply “is ordinary”, as Linji suggests, what differentiates this free person from the ordinary person who has not stepped on the buddha-way? It seems that it is faith (xin4 信): mainly faith in Linji’s discourse. This is a tricky point, because chan buddhism is famous for its rejection of words and suspicion towards speaking.
“Someone asked, “What about the state where ‘mind and Mind do not differ’?”[6] The master said, “The instant you ask the question they are already separate.” (D 18, p. 18). This is a central theme in chan-buddhism which purportedly is a “special transmission outside the scriptures”, from mind to mind. In fact, the Linji starts with the problem of language and speaking: “If I were to demonstrate the Great Matter in strict keeping with the teaching of the ancestral school, I simply couldn’t open my mouth” (D 1, p. 3).
But at the same time Linji stresses throughout his discourses that the buddha-mind reveals itself in the very act of listening to his discourse.
“This physical body of yours, composed of the four great elements, can neither expound the dharma nor listen to it;
your spleen and stomach, liver and gallbladder can neither expound the dharma nor listen to it;
the empty sky can neither expound the dharma nor listen to it.
Then what can expound the dharma nor listen to it?
This very you standing distinctly before me without any form, shining alone” (D 10, p. 9).
One must have faith in the teaching, and this conception seems not to be very far from the Occidental sola fide doctrine or from the devotional Pure Land teaching in China.[7] But since chan claims to be independent from scriptures, then it would run the risk of erring into the velleities of some particular teacher. Therefore the teacher’s validation by his own teacher became so important in chan buddhism, and the lineages were meticulously written down and often also invented or to some extent falsified. It is the direct transmission from Buddha himself, through the Indian and Chinese patriarchs, that validates a teacher.[8]
So, the meeting with a chan master has a liberating effect. “There is only the man of the Way who depends upon nothing, here listening to my discourse – it is he who is the mother of all buddhas” (D 14, p. 14). “Do you want to know the three realms? They are not separate from the mind-ground of you who right now are listening to my discourse” (D 18, p. 23); “This threefold body is you, listening to my discourse right now before my very eyes” (D 10, p. 9).
The freedom thus achieved is described in daoist terms.
(1) First, the person is able to respond (ying 应) spontaneously to every situation. “A true follower of the Way (...), conforming with circumstances as they are he exhausts his past karma; accepting things as they are he puts on his clothes; when he wants to walk he walks, when he wants to sit he sits; he never has a single thought of seeking buddhahood” (D 10, p. 10; cf. the “responsive activity” D 16, p. 16).
(2) More specifically, it is a “whole body” (quan2ti3 全体) action: “But should a man of extraordinary understanding come, I would act with my whole body and not place him in any category” (D 18, p. 25).
(3) Thirdly, the person pervades (tong1 通) all things: “Followers of the Way, mind is without form and pervades the ten directions” (D 10, p. 9) “‘Supreme Penetration’ (da4tong1 大通) means that one personally penetrates everywhere into the naturelessness and formlessness of the ten thousand dharmas.” (D 21, p. 29).
(4) Finally, this person is depicted as having supernatural powers (cf Zhuangzi’s first chapter and elsewhere): “Only you, the follower of the Way right now before my eyes listening to my discourse, (only you) enter fire and are not burned, enter water and are not drowned, enter the three hells as though strolling in a pleasure garden, enter the realms of the hungry ghosts and the beasts without suffering their fate” (D 18, p. 20).
But still it could veer into a chaos, and that is why it seems that Linji’s school needs the Caodong school that lays greater stress on sitting in meditation and where this sitting itself is considered enlightenment (e.g. according to the eminent Japanese buddhist philosopher Dogen).
Conclusion
In my paper I considered two texts, Plato’s allegory of the cave and Linjilu. I detected two modes of behavior or learning: doing and undoing. I focused mainly on the undoing, because I believe this has been less thought in our culture. I tried to show that it is not merely a negative attitude, but that it can involve a whole set of ideas and practices; and that the outcome of it is more comprehensive way of being in the world (acting “with the whole body”, as Linji says).
Although my analysis is far from sufficient, I believe the distinction of doing and undoing merits attention, especially in our contemporary world full of “doing”. In order to keep mental health and maintain flexibility in one’s doings, it is necessary to keep undoing at the same time: undoing fixed ideas, goals, identities. Undoing and unlearning are as important as doing and learning, and in a certain sense even more important, since they clear the ground for new doings and learnings.
[1] I could have construed this also inside either tradition, for instance in Europe between Hegel and Kierkegaard, or in China between Linji and Caodong factions of chan. But still in general it seems that the Western pair stresses more the doing and Chinese pair undoing.
[2] It is not expressly stated, who is the one that liberates one of the slaves, but we can surmise that s/he is somebody who has been liberated before by yet another person, and so on until some remote antiquity. But the beginnings are not the subject of this myth.
[3] All together it appears 18 times in technical sense and 2 times in non-technical sense.
[4] When I am talking about Linji, I am making no claims about the historical person called Linji, but I am only referring to the character that appears in the Linjilu
[5] Cf. in Discourses 18 the relationship between the student and the teacher, where Linji distinguishes between “guest examining the host”, “host examining the guest”, “host examining the host” and “guest examining the guest”. In the first case the student is ready, but the teacher is not; in the second case the teacher is ready, but the student is not; in the third case both are ready and in the fourth case neither of them is ready.
[6] The question is put on Linji’s phrase we cited above.
[7] One must not forget that the different schools of buddhism were not institutionally separate; in the premises of big monasteries different branches of buddhism were taught at the same time and the affiliation of the monastery was counted according to the abbot’s affiliation.
[8] The direct lineage from the apostles is very important in the Catholic and Orthodox churches also.