From the first not a thing is
Attributed to the 6th Patriarch of the Zen school, Huineng
D.T Suzuki described Huineng’s teaching here as a bomb because of it’s implications, and I think he’s right. It is the ultimate preclusion of form, doctrine, practice, mental objects, etc.
There are questions about the authenticity of much of the record attributed to huineng, but either way this teaching gets echoed by other zen masters through the centuries
Another example of this they I think is most striking is the infamous teaching from Huangbo (as translated by John Blofeld) “Dharma original Dharma not Dharma, not Dharma Dharma also Dharma, now transmit not Dharma Dharma, Dharma Dharma how-can be Dharma” (more sanely translated (also by Blofeld) as “The fundamental doctrine of the Dharma is that there are no Dharma’s, yet that this doctrine of no-dharma is in itself a dharma; and now that the no-dharma doctrine has been transmitted, how can the doctrine of the dharma be a dharma?”)
The term “Dharma” has a bunch of interrelated meanings. “Law,” “teaching,” “doctrine” and even “phenomena”.
Given this it should be clear huangbo and huineng are saying the same thing
Ah classic. HuangBo was a great read, though my first time through it my book was repeatative to the point of me belive in something. Needed to step away and then come back for it to sink in.
It’s one of my favs. Lots of different translation options (for portions of his record anyway) that help to make what he says quite clear
Ah good idea. I’ve got a bunch of books, but they are all just one translation each. I’ve never thought any seeking out other translations.
I like to imagine using multiple translations as a kind of triangulation on the original intent. It’s often not necessary, but when there’s something that makes absolutely no sense to me at first, that’s the initial step I like to take