What is the correct path to directly realize electricity and directly realize tathāgatagarbha? (2024-04-05)

Ven. Shi Ruyuan: Sometimes I also observe the wondrous functions of the tathāgatagarbha of self-nature as they manifest in various aspects. It is not that I look at a tathāgatagarbha as an object, but rather I observe the functions He performs in every aspect and facet, searching for His traces in these functions and observing the manifestation of His wondrous functions. 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 power sources, electric lights, light bulbs, televisions, or washing machines, and observe the manifestation of its functions. 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 contemplate the Dharma teachings through contemplative practice (vipaśyanā-caryā), 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 of electricity in electrical appliances counts as realizing electricity, then what specific functions does electricity perform in each of the various appliances? If the specific functions cannot be pointed out, then one has not realized electricity. The traces of electricity cannot be found, its operation cannot be seen, the principles of its operation cannot be observed, its form of existence cannot be discerned, and its composition is even less known—what kind of realization of electricity is this? Ask one question and get eight "I don't knows"—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 appliances work, even a three-year-old child knows this—does the child therefore count as having realized and understood electricity? Does knowing equal realizing and understanding? Does common knowledge equal empirical realization? How does the empirical realization of electricity by engineers and scientists 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 confident, extremely lacking in cognitive wisdom.

The second problem is that, before realizing the tathāgatagarbha, to observe the functions 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 identifying 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 imagining 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 the tathāgatagarbha performs in all dharmas, and does not know the appearance and characteristics of the tathāgatagarbha, then it has nothing to do with empirical 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 direct perception; one has not yet realized the tathāgatagarbha, so how can 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 there is a tathāgatagarbha, believing the tathāgatagarbha has the function of upholding all dharmas, and so she imagined the tathāgatagarbha functioning in the dharmas she encountered. This is the act of reversing cause and effect, taking the result as the cause. Because she especially believed in the truth of the tathāgatagarbha theory, she especially believed the tathāgatagarbha functions in all dharmas, yet she did not know what specific functions it performs. This has nothing at all to do with realizing the tathāgatagarbha; believing is not the same as realizing, and there is nothing real in it. I hope Ven. Shi Ruyuan and everyone can understand this principle and not do the thing of reversing cause and effect.

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 knowing that the tathāgatagarbha exists, knowing that the tathāgatagarbha is functioning—and what are the specific differences? Especially you, Ven. Shi Ruyuan: you must examine and reflect on the difference between your mode of thinking and genuine investigation (canjue). What problems existed in the past, and what problems remain now? You must find them out yourself, and correct and improve upon them.

Realization is realized and attained from within oneself, not 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, not found, not seen that person, that matter, that thing, that principle; precisely because one has never seen it, one must search for and investigate it among the people, matters, things, and dharmas one encounters. Although we have all studied the tathāgatagarbha teaching and know that the tathāgatagarbha is operating within the five-aggregate body (pañca-skandha), we have not yet realized the tathāgatagarbha. Therefore, the correct method of investigating Chan (canchan canjiu) should be to search for the tathāgatagarbha within the five-aggregate body, observing the operation of the five-aggregate body as if the tathāgatagarbha did not exist—not observing the tathāgatagarbha. Observing the tathāgatagarbha is the fruit that comes after realization; the fruit should not come before the cause. The cause is the process of investigating Chan and searching; only with this process can realization be attained, and only after realization can one observe. This sequence no one can reverse.

For example, take a huatou: "Who is dragging this corpse around?" Here, the corpse refers to the five-aggregate body, which everyone knows and can observe; the "who" within it is the unknown, which requires searching and investigation. You cannot, upon seeing this huatou, blurt out that it is the tathāgatagarbha dragging the corpse. Answering like this, in the Sixth Patriarch's terms, is called a "disciple of intellectual understanding" (zhijie zongtu)—this is exactly how 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 become enlightened and realized the tathāgatagarbha? Regardless of whether or not you have been told the answer of 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 in 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 can one observe A? What is the point of imagining an A in one's mind and then observing that? A corresponds to the tathāgatagarbha, and the crowd corresponds 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 and Realization, and I have explained the manas's method of investigation over and over as well. Yet you do not go study it, and instead take pride in reading few books—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—what is there to be anxious about? Setting off on the road without studying the map carefully—which way will you go? Intellectual understanding of the tathāgatagarbha is a common ailment of Mahāyāna practitioners in the Sahā world. They cannot even sort out the logical relationships; their capacity for logical thinking is very poor, yet they are both blind and extremely self-confident, grasping firmly at self, and no matter how they are guided, they refuse to accept it. Such people think: guessing and conjecturing is so fast, while empirical realization is so slow—and being slow means I cannot quickly display my abilities, so that everyone looks up to me and regards me with new eyes. How glorious it would be to become enlightened early!