What Is the Correct Path to Personally Realizing Electricity and Realizing the Tathāgatagarbha? (2024-04-05)

Ven. Shi Ruyuan: Sometimes I also observe the wondrous functions of the self-nature tathāgatagarbha manifesting in various aspects. It is not a matter of looking at a tathāgatagarbha as an object, but rather observing the functions He performs in each and every aspect, and searching for His traces through these functions, observing the manifestation of His wondrous workings. It is like electricity and electrical appliances: the essence of electricity cannot be seen, touched, tasted, or smelled; one can only search for its traces in electrical appliances—such as a power source, an electric lamp, a light bulb, a television, or a washing machine—and observe the manifestation of its functions and effects. In the past, when I read the Master's teachings on the Dharma, I still had to deliberate in order to understand them. Now that I have meditative concentration (samādhi), when I engage in contemplative practice (vipaśyanā-caryā) on the Dharma teachings, my mind is clear and my heart is unobstructed, and there is an indescribable sense of joy. The power of meditative concentration in subduing afflictions and distracting thoughts is truly inconceivable.

Assessment: There are two problems here that need to be recognized and resolved. The first problem is: if observing the functions and effects of electricity in electrical appliances counts as realizing electricity, then what specific functions and effects does electricity actually perform in the various appliances? If the specific effects cannot be pointed out, then it does not count as having realized electricity. The traces of electricity cannot be found, its operation cannot be seen, the principles of its operation cannot be observed, its mode of existence cannot be discerned, and its composition is even less known—what kind of realization of electricity is this? Upon one question, eight things are unknown; not a single thread of ignorance has been broken. If one merely knows that electricity exists when an appliance is running, and knows that electricity can make an appliance work—even a three-year-old child knows this—does the child also count as having realized and understood electricity? Does knowing equal realizing and understanding? Does common knowledge equal personal realization? How does the engineer's and scientist's realization of electricity differ from this? Most people do not even understand what realization means; they are unclear about the content and object of realization, blindly and mindlessly self-confident, and severely lacking in cognitive wisdom.

The second problem is that, before realizing the tathāgatagarbha, to observe the functions and effects of the tathāgatagarbha in the various dharmas is itself a paradox. It is like observing the appearance of a certain person A before ever having seen him, and only afterward trying to identify A from his appearance—this is extremely contradictory and laughable. Without knowing what characteristics the tathāgatagarbha has, where it functions, and what functions it performs, how can this be called observing the tathāgatagarbha? Imagining the tathāgatagarbha in one's head, imagining what functions the tathāgatagarbha performs—if such imagination is also called observation, then such observation is a self-deceiving act of fabricating something out of nothing.

If one does not know what specific functions and effects the tathāgatagarbha performs upon all dharmas, and does not know the appearance and characteristics of the tathāgatagarbha, then it is unrelated to realization; it is merely conjecture based on theoretical knowledge one has learned. Even doing this within the first dhyāna or preparatory concentration (anāgamya-samādhi) is still conjecture, not observation through direct perception/valid direct cognition. Having not yet realized the tathāgatagarbha, how could one observe Him? It is like not yet having seen a certain person A—how could one observe A? Ven. Shi Ruyuan's point of entry into the Mahāyāna was based on the tathāgatagarbha theory she had learned: believing that the tathāgatagarbha exists, and believing that the tathāgatagarbha has the function of upholding all dharmas, she then imagined the tathāgatagarbha functioning in the dharmas she encountered. This is the act of taking the effect as the cause. Because she especially believed in the truth of the tathāgatagarbha theory, she especially believed that the tathāgatagarbha functions within all dharmas, yet she did not know what specific functions it performs. This has nothing whatsoever to do with realizing the tathāgatagarbha; belief is not realization, and there is nothing real in it. I hope Ven. Shi Ruyuan and everyone will understand this principle and not do the thing of taking the effect as the cause.

Everyone, consider this: how great is the difference between realizing electricity and knowing that electricity exists, and what are the specific differences? By the same token, how great is the difference between realizing the tathāgatagarbha and merely knowing that the tathāgatagarbha exists and that it is functioning, and what are the specific differences? Ven. Shi Ruyuan especially, you must examine and reflect on yourself: the difference between your mode of thinking and genuine investigation—what problems existed in the past, and what problems remain now? You must identify them yourself, and correct and improve upon them.

Realization is attained from within oneself; it does not come from outside. What comes from outside is knowledge stuffed into you by others. Realization is not the acquisition of knowledge; rather, the crystallization of one's own wisdom becomes knowledge for others to learn. Before realization, one has not obtained, found, or seen that person, that event, that thing, or that principle; precisely because one has never seen it, one searches and investigates among the people, events, things, and dharmas one encounters. Although we have all studied the tathāgatagarbha teaching and know that the tathāgatagarbha is operating within the body of the five aggregates (pañca-skandha), we have not yet realized the tathāgatagarbha. Therefore, the correct method of investigating Chan should be to search for the tathāgatagarbha within the body of the five aggregates, observing the operation of the five-aggregate body as if the tathāgatagarbha did not exist—not observing the tathāgatagarbha. Observing the tathāgatagarbha is the effect that comes after realization; the effect should not come before the cause. The cause is the process of investigating Chan and searching; only with this process can realization occur, and only after realization can one observe. This sequence no one can reverse.

For example, take a huatou: "Who drags this corpse around?" Here, the corpse refers to the five-aggregate body, as everyone knows and can observe. The "who" is the unknown, which requires searching and investigation. You cannot, upon seeing this huatou, immediately open your mouth and say that it is the tathāgatagarbha dragging the corpse. Such an answer is what the Sixth Patriarch called a "disciple of mere intellectual understanding"—it was precisely for this that the monk Shenhui was rebuked by the Sixth Patriarch. Now that everyone knows it is the tathāgatagarbha dragging the corpse, does that mean everyone has awakened and realized the tathāgatagarbha? Regardless of whether you have been told this answer about the tathāgatagarbha, you must realize this matter for yourselves; you must personally investigate within the operation of the five-aggregate body.

Take another example: searching for a certain person A. First, knowing that A is among the crowd, one should search within the crowd. At this time, one should observe the crowd, not observe A. Not knowing where A is, how could one observe A? What is the point of imagining an A in one's mind and then observing that? Person A is analogous to the tathāgatagarbha, and the crowd is analogous to the five-aggregate body.

As for how to investigate and practice Chan, I have explained these methods over and over in the two books, Cultivating Samādhi and Investigating Chan to Attain Realization, and I have explained the manas's method of investigation over and over as well. You do not go study them, yet take pride in having read few books—and now that this pride has caused problems, how will you solve them? Without understanding the theory clearly, you rush into blind cultivation and blind investigation. If the principles are not thoroughly understood, cultivation is blind—so what is the hurry? Setting off on the road without first studying the map clearly, where will you go? Intellectual understanding of the tathāgatagarbha is a common ailment of Mahāyāna practitioners in the Saha world: they cannot even work out the logical relationships, their capacity for logical thinking is very poor, yet they are blind and incredibly self-confident, grasp fiercely at self, and refuse to accept guidance no matter how it is offered. Such people think: how fast guessing and conjecturing is, and how slow personal realization is! If it is slow, it cannot quickly display my abilities and make everyone look up to me in admiration and regard me with new eyes. How glorious it would be to attain enlightenment early!