5.The path is wordless, seeing one’s nature is Chan

Buddha is a Sanskrit term for enlightenment.

The word “buddha” in Chinese is a foreign term derived from the ancient Indian Sanskrit word "buddha. " Foreign words are typically translated into Chinese either phonetically or semantically; the phonetic transliteration into Chinese is "fo tuo," and the semantic translation is "awakened nature." The awakened nature, that is, realization of the true nature of mind, can also be called enlightenment or the enlightened one.

Next, we will explain "awakened" and "nature" respectively.

The enlightened one abides in a state of awakening; embracing living beings of all kinds, raising the brows, blinking the eyes, and moving the hands and feet are all his awakened nature.

The enlightened one abides in a state of awakening. The term “awakening” denotes the awakening of the mind. The buddha is an enlightened being, who has awakened to the true nature of mind – buddha nature. The mind's awareness of its own nature is "awakening." What is the "enlightened one"? He is one who is awakened.

The above pertains to the essence of mind. The following explores the state of "awakening."

Embracing living beings of all kinds, raising the brows, blinking the eyes, and moving the hands and feet are all his awakened nature. A buddha always abides in a state of awakening, but he can at the same time freely engage in various undertakings to save sentient beings.

Embracing living beings of all kinds – The living beings here refer mainly to human beings, but also to animals, plants, and other species. This sentence means that the buddha embraces and accepts all living beings with varying abilities. The buddha accomplishes this by expounding different teachings and methods to suit their individual capacities. The reason this is possible is that the buddha is an awakened being who possesses great wisdom. He fully understands the inherent capacity of each sentient being, which allows him to provide the corresponding methods.

The buddha is an enlightened being who can "embrace livings beings of all kinds." Others who want to do the same need to possess supernatural powers, which is one of the prerequisites for truly benefiting sentient beings. Among the many types of supernatural powers, the power that clearly “understands the mind of others” is the best to have. When saving sentient beings, you must know what the other person needs, what he is thinking, and which of his afflictions are most serious; you can then teach the person according to his aptitude, also know all the changes in the future and what impact the teaching will have on him. Although Buddhism does not pursue supernatural powers, they can be valuable tools for aiding sentient beings.

For those without such powers, it is important to understand the general background, cultural context, and needs of those they wish to help, like what they are thinking, what kind of pain they usually face, and what different types of people – women, men, young and old – worry most about. This allows for more effective and targeted assistance. If you speak or act without this understanding, the outcome may be counterproductive, leading to misunderstandings or even discouragement. Therefore, when the Buddha turned the wheel of Dharma, he paid special attention to understanding the afflictions and capacity of those who followed his teachings.

Raising the brows, blinking the eyes, moving the hands and feet are all his awakened nature – "Blinking" refers to actions such as blinking and rolling the eyes; "movement of hands and feet" refers to activities such as walking, talking, and eating. Sometimes the buddha sweeps the floor or goes for alms; sometimes he expounds different teachings to suit individual needs. But no matter what he does, the buddha's mind always dwells in a state of emptiness and wisdom, never leaving it for an instant.

Ordinary practitioners cannot be in a state of awakening or enlightenment twenty-four hours a day. Even if we have moments of insight, our daily lives and meditative states are often distinctly separate. However, this divide diminishes with practice over time, and almost disappears at the eighth level. From the eighth level on, the enlightened state can be fully applied to daily life; the distinction disappears entirely upon buddhahood – the buddha is always in enlightenment and can accomplish everything at the same time.

In sum, only the buddha can be called the enlightened one. Although other people have attained different levels of enlightenment, they cannot be called the enlightened one; they are referred to as bodhisattvas, sravakas, or other.

Our nature is the mind, the mind is the buddha, the buddha is the path, and the path is Chan. 

The following explains the "nature" in "awakened nature."

The word "nature" refers to the nature of mind. What did the buddha awaken to? The buddha realized the nature of our mind, and the nature of our mind is what the buddha awakened to. The "mind" here also refers to the nature of mind.

Our nature is the mind, the mind is the buddha, the buddha is the path, and the path is Chan means that the enlightened nature of the buddha is the nature of mind, and the nature of mind is the buddha; the buddha is the ultimate path, and the ultimate path is the highest state of Chan.

In Buddhism, there are five paths and ten grounds. The last of the five paths is the path of no more learning – when you have completed your practice and have nothing more to learn, you are already a buddha. The state of the buddha is, on the one hand, the highest state of Chan; on the other hand, it is the wisdom of the buddha. Therefore, the ultimate path is the ultimate Chan; the highest state of Chan is the state of the buddha. Below the path of no more learning, there is the path of seeing (for bodhisattvas at the first level) and the path of meditation (for bodhisattvas at the remaining nine levels). Although the path of seeing and that of meditation are not as high as the state of the buddha, they are still the path, they are also Chan. Therefore, Chan is the path, and the path is Chan.

But the word Chan is one that is hard for ordinary people and sages to understand. 

The word "Chan" has a very rich meaning, its content extremely profound. Ordinary people cannot realize it, nor can all sages.

It is understandable that ordinary people cannot achieve enlightenment, but why not saints? The ultimate teaching in Chan is on the nature of mind, clear light, and buddha nature; only the saints of Mahayana Buddhism can attain this state. Other saints, such as arhats and pratyekabuddhas of Theravada Buddhism, have not realized the nature of mind.

Therefore, do not simply view Chan as meditating and cultivating tranquility, without thinking about anything. In fact, Chan already encompasses all the states of the bodhisattvas from the first to the tenth level, and the buddhas as well. It is thus clear that Chan is indeed unfathomable!

Seeing your nature directly is Chan. Unless you see your nature, it is not Chan. 

What exactly is Chan? There is a broad and narrow definition.

The broad definition comprises not only the content discussed here but also other Chan practices such as the four dhyanas and eight samadhis. The four dhyanas and eight samadhis are not advanced meditation practices. They can be realized by ordinary people and are also practiced by heretics.

The heretics I am talking about here are different from the heretics mentioned by Bodhidharma. Bodhidharma defined heretics, these so-called outsiders, as followers of Buddhism who are not highly accomplished practitioners or have not realized the very profound state of Chan, such as arhats and pratyekabuddhas; the heretics I refer to who practice the four dhyanas and eight samadhis are not converts to Buddhism. In general, we call those who take refuge in the Three Jewels of Buddhism as canonical practitioners, and those who do not take refuge as heretics or non-Buddhists. During the time of Sakyamuni Buddha, there were many such heretics in India; they also practiced the four dhyanas and eight samadhis.

The narrow definition pertains just to the realization of Chan, the kind that is expounded in the Bloodstream Treatise.

Seeing your nature directly is Chan. Directly seeing the true nature of mind – seeing the true nature clearly and possessing the wisdom of enlightenment is called Chan. Unless you see your nature, it is not Chan. If you do not attain enlightenment, it cannot be called Chan. Therefore, true Chan is extremely profound!

Even if you can explain thousands of sutras and treatises, unless you see your true nature, your words are those of an ordinary person, not a buddha’s. 

Even if you are proficient in the entire canon and all the principles in the thousands of sutras and treatises, if you have not realized the nature of mind, you are just an ordinary person – no matter how knowledgeable, you are still a mortal, because you have not yet truly realized the Dharma.

The supreme path is profound, impossible to put in words; the scriptures cannot explain it. 

The supreme path is profound, impossible to put in words. The supreme path refers to the state of the buddha; this state is so profound that it cannot possibly be expressed in words. It is difficult to achieve enlightenment by just listening and contemplating. You must experience and realize it yourself.

The scriptures cannot explain it. All Buddhist scriptures and teachings that rely on human language cannot capture or explain the true meaning of buddha nature.

But you can apprehend the truth if you see your own nature, even without knowing a word. 

So long as you see the true nature of mind, not knowing a word is not a problem. For example, the Sixth Patriarch, Hui Neng, was illiterate but that did not prevent him from attaining realization. Therefore, cultural sophistication, or the lack of, is not directly related to enlightenment.

Of course, learning the Buddhist principles can be very beneficial if you are highly educated. Through listening and contemplation, you can deepen your understanding of the scriptures and practice more successfully. However, it is helpful only at the intellectual level; it has an indirect but not a direct effect on enlightenment.

A person who sees his nature is a buddha; the buddha’s body is intrinsically pure and undefiled. 

A person who sees his nature is a buddha. Once you understand your mind thoroughly and see your nature, you become a buddha. When you are free of obstacles and you completely see the nature of your mind, you are certainly a buddha.

Only the buddha can see the true nature of mind completely. Even the bodhisattvas at the eighth level and above have obstacles that obscure the nature of mind, because they have not yet eradicated the last bit of defilement and attachment. One can clearly see the true nature of mind and become a buddha when all afflictions and attachments are thoroughly eliminated.

There is nothing wrong with the statement "someone who sees his nature is a buddha," but sometimes our understanding is biased. If we equate enlightenment with becoming a buddha, it is wrong! Enlightenment does not mean seeing the true nature of mind completely. Maybe you only see a part of it, which means you are about to become a buddha. Therefore, we must understand "seeing one's nature" as thoroughly seeing the nature of one's own mind to avoid misunderstandings.

The buddha’s body is intrinsically pure and undefiled. The “buddha’s body,” the essence of the buddha, is in fact the nature of mind. The nature of mind is basically pure and free from any defilements. Afflictions are caused by our misapprehension of the nature of mind; they do not exist in essence. We only understand this intellectually now, but when we achieve enlightenment in the future, we will find that all defilements exist only on the surface of the mind but not in essence! In the words of Chan, the buddha’s essence is free of defilements and attachment, so it is intrinsically pure.

All words spoken by the buddha or sages are a function of the mind. This mind is inherently empty. A buddha cannot be found in famous sayings or anywhere in the twelve divisions of the scriptures. 

All words spoken by the buddha or sages are a function of the mind. Two words are mentioned here: function and mind. "Function" refers to the workings of the wisdom of the sage, the wisdom to think and judge. What is the essence of function? It is wisdom itself. Therefore, the essence of the function of wisdom is wisdom itself. "Mind" in this case refers not to the nature of mind, but to wisdom. We are talking about the function that wisdom can play. All words are functions produced from the wisdom of the sage.

Which sages are we talking about? Although the buddha will also transmit the Dharma on the surface, in fact the buddha only has wisdom, no consciousness. The bodhisattvas at the eighth level and above have almost no consciousness, their thinking and judgment are all completed through wisdom and meditation. The bodhisattvas at the seventh level and below do have consciousness, and will sometimes use this consciousness to discuss their views and propagate the Dharma.

"All words spoken by sages are the function of the mind" means all language and words arise from the wisdom or consciousness of the sages.

This mind is inherently empty. This wisdom or consciousness that functions, its essence is emptiness. Therefore, the nature of mind is both emptiness and buddha nature.

A buddha cannot be found in famous sayings or anywhere in the twelve divisions of the scriptures. "Famous sayings" refers to all languages, including all kinds of names, vocabulary, etc. The “twelve divisions of the scriptures” refers to the entirety of the Buddhist scriptures, which can be divided into twelve parts. This statement means that all names and vocabulary cannot express the state of the buddha, because language has its limitations; it can only tell us roughly what the nature of mind or clarity is, but never in a very clear or precise way. Therefore, we cannot possibly attain the state of the buddha just by studying the twelve divisions of the scriptures.

In fact, many things in daily life cannot be expressed in words. In the early days of mankind, there was no language, let alone writing. Later, in groups living together, a consensus on some things was formed, which over time slowly evolved into language. For example, what is "sweet"? Sweetness is a taste, but the word "sweet" can never directly express this taste. To understand this taste, you must taste it yourself. After everyone has tasted sweetness, they have a common understanding; the word "sweet" is then used to express it. If someone has never tasted it, they will not understand what others are talking about – this is due to the limitations in language.

So, language itself is based on a misunderstanding, but this misunderstanding is necessary so that people can communicate. Take “sweet” as an example again, the word “sweet” has no actual relationship with the taste itself. The first group of humans who created language chose to use "sweet" to describe this taste, thereby establishing a consensus: when the word "sweet" is said, everyone knows what it refers to. In fact, this is a wrong feeling, but it is what we need; without it, people will have a hard time communicating.

It is thus evident that not only transcendent concepts such as emptiness and clarity, but also certain things in daily life are difficult to directly express clearly. The secular concepts are a little better, such as the word "sweet." Firstly, everyone agrees on this word, and secondly, everyone has eaten sweets, so this word can clearly express sweetness. However, words such as emptiness, clarity, and buddha nature are completely foreign to those who have not yet realized enlightenment. Even if we use more words to describe them, it is still confusing and incomprehensible. Just like people who have never eaten sweets, they will be confused on hearing the word "sweet."

Therefore, the Buddhist scriptures repeatedly point out that the Dharma cannot be expressed in words. No matter how many Buddhist scriptures we learn, we must experience and realize it ourselves, otherwise it will be very difficult to understand the true connotation of Buddhism.

The path is basically perfect. It does not need to be created or perfected. 

The "path" refers to buddha nature. The nature of everyone's mind is buddha nature. Because buddha nature already exists and is perfect, this "path" does not need to be perfected.

Does this mean we do not need to practice? No, it does not. The meaning here is that since the "path" is the eternally existing buddha nature, there is no need to create it through practice, but to understand and realize its existence. The purpose of our listening, contemplating, and practicing is not to create a new path, but to discover and experience the original path.

The path has no form or sound. It is subtle and hard to see. 

The path has no form or sound. "Sound and color," that is, sound and matter, generally refers to the outside material world. The "path" has nothing to do with the material world. In other words, the world we understand through our senses has nothing to do with the path, because the path is the nature of our fundamental innate mind. Therefore, the nature of mind is extremely subtle and hard to see. 

How can the existence of the "path" be established? If you want to prove it, the only way is to realize it yourself. You will then discover: Oh, this is the nature of mind! No explanation is needed, nor is logic or basis necessary. But for those who have not yet attained enlightenment, it is indeed difficult to prove. Not all truths can be communicated clearly. This depends on two conditions: to whom it is expressed and how it is expressed.

If the other party is not yet enlightened, any basis or evidence is futile; it can never be explained clearly. Just like trying to prove that honey is sweet to a person who has never tasted sweets, you will get nowhere with any amount of reasoning because the other person lacks the actual experience. Of course, this also depends on the other person; if he has never eaten honey but has tasted other sweets, you can by way of the appropriate expressions bring his understanding a step further.

Just like a person drinking water knows how hot or cold it is, but cannot tell others. 

Just like a person drinking water knows how hot or cold it is. This statement is very important. It is like a person drinking water, he knows very well whether the water is cold or hot without being told by others. At that moment, no theoretical support is needed.

If someone has never had the experience of drinking cold or hot water, trying to use words to explain what is cold or hot water is impossible. Even if all the words and languages in the world are used, it is difficult to truly understand because he has no concept of cold or hot. But if this person has tried similar drinks, you can explain it to him step by step, which may help him understand it better.

Where are we now? We have only heard about emptiness, buddha nature, and clarity, but have not experienced it; no matter how many words the master uses, it is difficult to understand. Therefore, it is particularly important to find a way to experience it yourself.

But cannot tell others. You cannot tell others about emptiness and other profound topics. You cannot say it even if you want to.

Perhaps some people will think that, at the most critical moment, you are avoiding the issue by claiming it cannot be expressed in words. Certainly not! Human language is indeed unable to express key issues such as the nature of mind, of which the reasons we have already discussed. In sum, there are two points.

Firstly, it is hard to convey without actual experience. This is true not only for buddha nature and clarity, but also for certain things in daily life, such as the feeling of pain. If I want to tell people around me about my headache, it is useless no matter how I describe it, if they have never had a headache before. They will not understand it at all.

It is thus clear that language has considerable limitations. If people want to communicate, they must first have the same experience; next, they need to establish a consensus and use a certain term to express something that everyone knows. For example, when we say "sky," we all know that it refers to the void above our heads; when we say "earth," we know that it refers to the land under our feet. But there is no actual relationship between the two, it is just an artificial agreement. When we learn a foreign language, it is equivalent to participating in an agreement with foreigners. In short, language without shared experience and agreement is ineffective. Therefore, regarding emptiness and the nature of mind, we can only "not tell others." People who have not experienced it cannot convey it; enlightened people are also incapable of describing the state of enlightenment to those who are not yet enlightened.

Secondly, language itself is created to satisfy our needs in life and is of little use beyond daily matters. Therefore, the true connotation of Buddhism cannot be directly expressed in words. "Like a person drinking water, he knows how hot or cold it is," it must be realized by oneself.

That which only the tathagata can know, all other beings are unaware. Ordinary people are not wise enough, so they have attachments. Not knowing their mind is basically empty, they cling to appearances and all phenomena; they are thus outsiders. 

That which only the tathagata can know, all other beings are unaware. Only the buddha can fully understand the nature of mind; humans and heavenly beings do not understand it. Of course, this does not mean that the bodhisattvas from the first to the tenth level do not comprehend the nature of mind; they have already realized it, but not fully or perfectly like the buddha.

Ordinary people are not wise enough, so they have attachments. Why are ordinary people not enlightened? Their wisdom is not deep enough, so they have attachments.

Not knowing their mind is basically empty, they cling to appearances and all phenomena; they are thus outsiders. Ordinary people have not yet realized that the true nature of their mind is empty. They are attached to all kinds of appearances and things, so they are "outsiders." The outsiders here should be understood as people who have not achieved enlightenment. This is how Bodhidharma and some Buddhist scriptures define it.

If you know that everything arises from the mind, you should not have any attachment; with attachment, you are unaware. 

If you understand that everything comes from your mind – that the external world does not really exist but is merely a projection of your mind – you should not develop attachment to external things. If such attachment arises, it means you still do not understand this principle.

There is an interesting phenomenon going on now. Some open-minded scientists have begun to question whether the universe exists when humans are not observing it. This is surprisingly an issue under study in scientific materialism! Isn't the universe always there? If external matter exists objectively, what difference does it make whether we see it or not? Certainly, scientists would not be investigating this issue without reason or basis.

Buddhism has always maintained that the outside world is created by our mind, and that we live in the world we create. The movie "The Matrix" vividly illustrates this principle. If you take a good look, you will know what is going on. The humans in the film live in a virtual world created by computer programs, but they are completely unaware and believe it is the real world.

In fact, the world we are in now is just the same. From birth, we firmly believe that the colors and shapes we see are real. But the Buddha told us very early on these do not exist at all. Not only the Buddha, now scientists are also saying the same thing. If these things that my eyes see are not real, what are they? According to the Buddha and scientists, they are merely images in your brain, just your illusion! If that is the case, isn’t it possible the entire world, not just colors and shapes, is an image in the brain? The answer is yes. But matter cannot possibly be in part real and in part an illusion. Thus, some scientists and philosophers have started a discussion on whether the universe exists when we are not observing it.

At this point, the Buddha would say: I said more than 2,500 years ago that this world is created by our mind. But do not worry. If you choose to remain in this world you have created, you can live safely and happily life after life, the premise being you do not commit evil deeds – you do not create bad karma. However, if you seek liberation from the cycle of life and death, that is also possible. Once you transcend, you can step out of the world you have created.

If you see your true nature, the entire twelve divisions of the scriptures become senseless words. Its thousands of sutras and treatises are just for knowing the mind; if you have achieved this goal through words, what use are the teachings thereafter? 

If you see your true nature, the entire twelve divisions of the scriptures become senseless words. "Senseless words" refers to boring and useless words. If you see the true nature of your own mind, the twelve divisions of the scriptures are useless. In fact, the Buddhist scriptures are all contained in these twelve divisions; there are no other scriptures.

Its thousands of sutras and treatises are just for knowing the mind; if you have achieved this goal through words, what use are the teachings thereafter? The "teachings" refer mainly to the Buddhist scriptures and treatises (the contents expounded by the Buddha himself are called sutras; the commentaries by Nagarjuna Bodhisattva, Maitreya Bodhisattva, etc. are known as treatises). The only purpose of these sutras and treatises is to let us understand our own mind. If you attain great enlightenment and understand your mind through words, you have achieved this goal. There is no use for these sutras and treatises thereafter.

The Buddhist scriptures often compare language and characters to bridges or boats; they are needed when we cross a river, but are no longer necessary after we cross the river and reach our destination. Similarly, all Buddhist sutras and treatises are only for us to understand the nature of our own mind. When we achieve enlightenment one day, these sutras and treatises lose their function. This is the reason Bodhidharma always refused to acknowledge the twelve divisions of the scriptures.

Therefore, you need to know at what level one is speaking from. For beginners, Buddhist scriptures and treatises are useful; reading, reciting, copying, and making offerings to Buddhist scriptures are meritorious deeds. But in the eyes of Bodhidharma, these activities are not meritorious at all. For this reason, Emperor Wu of Liang and he parted on bad terms. Bodhidharma would say that Buddhist scriptures are idle texts, and those who are not enlightened are heretics. There is only one thing he recognized – enlightenment! So long as you are enlightened, anything is possible. If you are not enlightened, you have nothing in common with Bodhidharma.

The ultimate truth is beyond words; the scriptures are just words, not the path. The path is wordless. Words are delusions. 

The ultimate truth is beyond words. The ultimate and highest state of truth cannot be expressed. It is beyond the reach of words.

The scriptures are just words, not the path. Whether it is Buddhist scriptures or treatises, they are all made up of language and texts. They are not the path at all.

The path is wordless. Words are delusions. The path itself has no language and does not fall within the domain of words or speech. It cannot be expressed through language or text. Our ability to communicate in daily life is based on illusions; without these illusions, communication would not be possible. Hence, all speech is deluded thinking. Such delusions are of no use in understanding the path, because no language or words can adequately convey the essence of the path.