Part II
Unraveling the meaning of the main terms of Niō Zen
Chapter 5
On Niō
Niō is that of Man looking to his brute and animal form, yet rising out of it to become of mind, cultivated, and attained in understanding. Then with a fine nature, seeking to learn and abide by the Heavenly being within him and the accord of the great Law, uniting the brute with the Man, and the Man becoming Sage, a Sovereign over and within himself."
-VOLT
I am here as Vajrapani, and artificial compassion is not the nature of this Buddhism; awakened wrath is. Let's see if it is a bell whose sound you can hear.
Introduction
Niō is, on the perceptual level, the name of the two guardian statues standing together, protecting the temple gates, mostly in Eastern Asia, and in this case, most often depicted in Japan.
I say perceptual, meaning they can be called objects able to be seen, studied, named, and identified.
This is the first level of thinking, when such a question can be asked. What are the Niō?
Well, they are figures, statues, two in number, and taken to be temple guardians in Buddhism, mostly found in Japan.
Now, because of this Japanese connection, I have chosen to make use of Japanese aesthetics in general throughout this discipline, its science, its terms, and its Buddhist flare.
However, the reader must understand : Buddhist, and that of Japanese Buddhism, are being used only for aesthetics purpose. What I am declaring to be at the core is that of concepts and variables that are universal to a specific nature, "breed", or "stock" of those who would pursue philosophy.
Aesthetically, that breed, that stock, is captured in these figures, these characters. Developing one's understanding means going beyond the mere perceptual, and developing a sense that is conceptual; this from what is called "simple concepts" to then that of "complex concepts".
My objective as a writer is to try to guide the investigator through this process.
In the first order of technical breakdown, I am going to begin with the word Niō itself, as it is rendered in Japanese, then to English. From this name, this title, this description embodied in a single term, I am going to deduce the intent behind such renderings, and breakdown the correlated terms and ideas surrounding it.
What will happen is that an entire philosophy that was contained in a single word, that word being Niō, will unfold before the reader.
"Niō is the name of two characters in Buddhism, guardians of the Law, but too, hidden in this name, is a great amount of expressions often only understood by the initiated. Niō is esoteric knowledge hidden in a cipher of realizations. I will unlock that cipher."
-VOLT
This section will be initiated with the notion of metaphors and similes as being the nature of Eastern thought and language. This is important to state, because this differs from what could be called Western philosophy, wherein definition and precision are sought after as a means to gain greater proximity to "truth".
Eastern thought is encapsulated in Eastern language. In the future, I will compose an essay on the matter of language and its control on thought, or possibilities of thinking.
When metaphor and similes are the main ingredients of a language, then it can be called ambiguous, vague, and rather subject to interpretation on all levels.
If metaphorical and by simile, an expression and its components left without definition and commentary by the communicator will inherently be left to the judgment and projections of the reader and/or receiver of the communique.
Let me use an example.
Tao or Dao 道
Some dictionaries of Chinese to English have some 36 definitions for this character, from "the Way", "to go", "to head up/out", to "the road", and even to that of "to say".
Oxford English Dictionary, or the OED, has this to say :
1. a. In Taoism, an absolute entity which is the source of the universe; the way in which this absolute entity functions.
1. b. = Taoism, Taoist
2. In Confucianism and in extended uses, the way to be followed, the right conduct; doctrine or method.
The meaning of this character can not be resolved to a single meaning as finite. This is because the character is ambiguous. It is not meant to house a complex concept.
Some have argued that this is a difference between the West and the East way of thinking, conceptual versus metaphorical. However, a metaphor is still a concept, and is therefore conceptual, it is just an inaccurate concept.
This is true when the term concept is taken to mean "the idea of a thing", or that is, some "notion of a thing."
Concepts are a primary component of all of cognition. The human mind, when language based—as it is more often than not—is engaged in the arrangement of mental representations of the world around them, and their Sense of Self. Sense of Self and Sense of Life are all cognitive; therefore, dependent upon the primary of concepts. A metaphor and a simile are conceptual, as they are mental representations of belief or knowledge about a "thing"—things being that which have been observed by the senses.
With the Eastern languages use of pictographs, the form of the communication is always left in simple concept form.
A simple concept is the kind of mental representation that is based mostly on perceptual data, and is not composed of multiple concepts. So a car, for example, is a simple concept, and a police car becomes liken to a complex concept, because now, it is a car, but it is a specific kind of car that is used by a police unit. A police unit is a complex concept, because it is composed of more than one concept.
Now, in the minds of most, however, the policeman and the police car are treated like simple concepts, because the thinker is not aware of the units and definitions of that being observed.
An example of this is so :
What is a policeman?
A man who patrols with authority of the city, and has a certain costume designating his status. He often carries a weapon and his job, as it is a profession, is to fight crime. This is the simple concept level of thinking of a policeman.
Simple, because the thinker excludes the element that a policeman is an enforcer, not of law, but of policy; begging the question, whose policy? Answer being : of the polis, or the city. Because the policeman is defined by their relationship with the city—and without the city, they would not be a policeman—one has to define the city, or what a city is. A city is a body politic composed of individuals, laying claim to the use of legitimate force over a set geographical location. They are the governing body of that region.
This is what makes the concept of a policeman a complex concept. Complex simply means composed of other concepts. However, though it is a complex concept, it does not mean that the receiver/communicator is employing complex conceptual thinking when they think upon this observed thing, a policeman. For most, they do not transcend the simple concept and treat their mental representations as complex concepts. This is a matter of focus, intelligence, familiarity, knowledge, belief, and learning.
No matter how the agent/actor uses their mind, the term policeman is a complex concept. Even in the name is polis, city, and it is shared with policy, or that of the rules and regulations of the city.
Why does this matter?
Imagine you are having a bad day, and you get pulled over in your automobile by a policeman. You say to him, you work for "us" (or me), and you do not own property and pay local taxes. Then you will not know you are wrong when you only have a simple concept understanding of a policeman. They work for the city, and the city is beholding to the land owners who pay taxes to the city. One who does not own land in the city's declared region does not pay the city, and the city is not beholding to them.
One who rents does not pay the salary of police officers. I have heard then, in argument, another say to me, "I pay the rent, and they use that to pay the taxes, so I do pay the taxes". Again, simple concept limitation. In this case, it is a failure to understand the complex concept of services rendered, services paid for, and end of transaction state. Meaning, the land owner charges you rent; their service is a place to live; you pay the rent for a place to live; end of transaction. If they buy a car with the money you paid them, it is not your car, right? Why? Because they rendered the service, or trade, and the purchase and reception of the service ends the activity.
The same error in thinking can be seen in the notion of a businessman "giving back to the community". This is ridiculous. The businessman provides a service that others receive in exchange for monetary purchase. The businessman did not "take" from the community, or receive a gift. He received payment. When folk say "give back", they are stuck in not understanding commerce and trade, which can be considered as complex concepts.
All throughout the language of a people is hidden these ideological holds shaped by being limited to simple concepts. When you treat a complex concept as a simple concept, you degrade it. And you will often make bad decisions, and you will often be ignorant to how much of an impact your ignorance has on your well-being.
Humans, as a mass, may have a hard time dealing in complex concepts. For the most part, I have seen this to be true.
The Eastern language does not often have a representation that can be called a complex concept. Instead, the meaning that is transmitted to the learner is either complex conceptual level meaning, or the simple concept meaning. So the Dao has this element to it. In the simple concept level, it means to "lead", "guide", "to go", "the road", "the way", or to some, "the way of Heaven".
To understand what it means in Taoism/Daoism, one would need to take the whole works of Lao Tzu as the definition of this single character. However, this meaning would then be limited to saying it means so and so, in Taoism.
Lao Tzu expresses the Tao as being in favor of order, natural Laws/physics, economization, less destruction, less effort or energy loss, virtuousness, or that of right action, right speech, and right thought. It is in essence the underlying reality of all phenomena, and the ordering force of all Laws, identity, and fruition.
However, one needs to learn what all of this can mean, and the word Tao/Dao does not guide one to this learning. Dependency on translations of Lao Tzu (he used a simple concept bound, and metaphorical/simile heavy language) means that learning of the Tao from him as a source is a bad source.
So long as the terms are heavy in metaphor/simile, then all can argue at what the meaning of the term is, should be, was meant to be, and so on.
I have a simple solution for this problem :
To simply define all essential terms, adding commentary and explanation of their use, specific to the discipline and/or writings of specified individuals and groups.
It is that simple.
What this means is I will show, as I proceed, the characters taken from the Eastern languages, as they are connected to this discipline. I will then give the historical sense of the term, and the term as thought of in the systems that used it. And finally, I will give great definition and clarity to how the term is to be conceived of and utilized within this very specific discipline/philosophy/system/religion called Niō Zen.
Debating this matter of the meaning of the terms will then become foolish for those who would dare. Because upon these pages and in my treatise will be the clear act of deliberating upon the terms, and settling in their adopted, adjusted, and rather perfected level of use and understanding.
My example of this is hereto presented :
Tao/Dao is the conceivable nature of the underlying reality of all phenomena, and the primary characteristic of this unnameable is Ratiocination. Dao is the term most appropriate to characterize this notion of Ratiocination. It is knowable and applicable; however, it is the primary characteristic of the unnameable and inconceivable whole of reality.
Therefore, the focus is not on trying to define the undefinable, know the unknowable, or worship the unseen and unfelt. The focus is to discover the Ratiocinative essence of being, and to come into accord with it. This is what is meant by knowing the Tao and being in accordance with its ways, often called the Way of Heaven. The Tao, as the Way of Heaven, means the way of Ratiocination. Now, this term Ratiocination will need some answering too, which shall come later on. But this example will illuminate how I intend to treat these pictographs, metaphors, and similes. I aim to liberate them from the prison of the metaphor, so as to render them intellectually and spiritually useful.
For investigators, if they are not used to a more definitive way of using and adopting terms, this may come off unusually burdensome. Often, casual readers are looking for a casual read. This will not be a casual read, nor the kind of literature that affirms that previously held by the investigator.
The entirety of this technical manual serves the interest of securing the route, or that is, understanding of Niō Zen and its discipline. Freeing it from ambiguity, from any kind of vagueness of the metaphor/simile is key.
That said, it is quite the mission, because the entirety of Buddhist and Zen thought is encapsulated in metaphor/simile, and that of Eastern simple concept renderings. This means I will be defining and making accurate every term that pertains to this breed of Buddhistic thought called Niō Zen.
In order, I will begin with defining Niō, but Niō is a complex concept, composed of other concepts. Too, will I need to follow like a tree, the roots of this term, and make all of its primary elements, or term ingredients known, covered, and deliberated upon. After I do this, I will then move on to Zen, and then so.
"The metaphor/simile is of descent use to the mind of the young; a step towards increasing a proximity of understanding. However, it is meant to be transcended into definition, exactness, and precision, guided by sound Reasoning, investigation, experimentation, and confirmation. A mature mind no longer holds on to metaphor, when it has come to grasp Reasoning and identification. If one does not free themselves from the youth of metaphor, they will not cognitively mature, but will be a prisoner of the metaphor."
-VOLT
Niō : Naraen Kongō (Ungyō) and Misshaku Kongō (Agyō)
Niō (仁王) or Kongōrikishi (金剛力士) is the focus of this section. I have provided the English rendering of the terms, as well as the Japanese characters. The Japanese characters will be the guide to understanding and defining these terms.
A quick search on the internet to try to find out what the Niō (仁王) is will send one into a rabbit hole of uncertainty, simple Buddhist cosmology, and talks of the Buddhist Pantheon.
The most general notion is that the Niō (仁王) are Dharmapala (guardians of the Law), manifestations of the Bodhisattva Vajrapani.
Vajrapani is considered the oldest and most empowered, most powerful Bodhisattva of the Mahayana Buddhist Pantheon. Yet to the practicing Buddhists of today and their masses, what role does he hold, but perhaps a mere mention here and there in regard to empowerment?
I must say I have little interest in getting caught up in defining the entirety of Buddhist cosmology, which has been poorly mingled into the realm of Hindu ideologies.
In short, Bodhisattvas are characteristics of the Buddha, and a Buddha. They are not their own beings, or individual entities. This is what is meant by "manifestation".
Manifestation :
an event, action, or object that clearly shows or embodies something, especially a theory or an abstract idea.
When it is said that the Niō (仁王) are manifestations of Vajrapani, it is a clear statement that they are of and from Vajrapani, and are meant to be seen as characteristics of Vajrapani, not as their own entities.
This becomes a confusing matter in Buddhism, because practitioners do not learn of the meaning of the language, the order, and the hierarchies. Vajrapani itself made its first appearance as a manifestation out of the Buddha. Vajrapani is called Buddha's greatest power, or empowerment.
Therefore, the hierarchy of manifestation is that Buddha holds many attributes and characteristics that are Buddhahood. One of these elements is in his wrath and his willingness to do violence for justice. And that attribute is called Vajrapani. Within that attribute, a war attribute of the Buddha, are then other attributes, able to be found under the terms and characters of Acala, Fudō Myō-ō, and of course the elements of Niō (仁王).
Those two elements are overt/covert, exoteric/esoteric, dynamic/stealth, violence/restraint, spoken/unspoken, and so on. The two characteristics of Niō (仁王) are elements of the Vajrapani attribute of Buddha.
Niō (仁王) are Buddha.
Vajrapani is Buddha.
Buddha is many things, as an awakened Man. His state of being awakened, and habitually so, means he understands life, its nature, his own nature, and the nature of other beings. Therefore, he understands his rights and duties in the realm of law and justice.
I will not get ahead of myself; instead, I will return back to the Niō (仁王).
What needs to be taken from this is that when you see a Bodhisattva named, and an element of a character spoken about, remember : these are all the Buddha. If you take out one ingredient, then it is not the Buddha. So when you see these sissy Buddhists, talking so much about compassion and never about wrath, then they understand neither, and most certainly do not understand the Buddha.
Niō (仁王) attributes can be said to be this :
0. Are Buddha's Vajrapani
1. Wrathful
2. Muscular/Strong/Fighters
3. Guardians of the Buddhahood and practitioners
4. Dharmapala (Guardians of the Law, Dharma)
5. Power of Wisdom
6. Longevity
7. Aggregate of Discernment
8. Pure Perception
9. Deep Awareness of the Emptiness of Phenomenon
(What the hell does this mean, you may ask? TO be answered elsewhere...)
The Niō (仁王) are divided into two born from one, having been born to a queen of a Heavenly king.
The first is called Misshaku Kongō (密迹金剛),
also called Agyō (阿形).
The second is called Naraen Kongō (那羅延金剛), also called Ungyō (吽形).
Misshaku Kongō is a symbol of overt violence; he wields a Vajra mallet, "vajra-pāṇi" (a diamond club, thunderbolt stick, or sun symbol).
He is often, if not always, baring his teeth, as he is the open mouthed statue of the two, producing the "a" form.
Naraen Kongō is that of covert violence, and/or restraint; he is often depicted either empty handed or wielding a sword. He symbolizes latent strength, holding his mouth tightly shut.
The mouths of these two are the major indicators of which is which, and often, they are on the same side of left or right.
Together, they are called the Kongōrikishi, in Japanese.
The statue that is often on the right is Misshaku Kongō (密迹金剛) and has his mouth open, representing the vocalization of the first grapheme of Sanskrit Devanāgarī (अ), which is pronounced "a".
The left statue is Naraen Kongō (那羅延金剛) and has his mouth closed, representing the vocalization of the last grapheme of Devanāgarī (ह [ɦ]), which is pronounced "ɦūṃ" (हूँ).
These two characters together (a-hūṃ/a-un) symbolize the birth and death of all things.
Men are supposedly born speaking the "a" sound with mouths open, and die speaking an "ɦūṃ" with mouths closed.
The contraction of both is Aum (ॐ), which is Sanskrit for the Absolute.
Shukongōshin
A manifestation of Kongōrikishi that combines the Naraen and Misshaku Kongō into one figure is the Shukongōshin, at Tōdai-ji, in Nara, Japan. Shukongōshin (執金剛神)—literally "vajra-wielding spirit"—is Shikkongōjin in Japanese.
All of these manifestations are degrees of development. I will explain this when the moment in realization is right. But in its simple form, the essence is this :
One comes first to the "many", in this case being the finding of the Niō. By nature, the path to first become proficient in is the covert path, Ungyō (吽形). This is the most natural, for the power structure one is in, as a child, is controlled by the matured and aged elements of the society, and the young can not be overt in their power displays, grabs, and defenses. The young develops subtle subconscious strategies and tactics to gain power over themselves and others. But Ungyō (吽形) is not a term that applies to this emotional and social state of the young of humans; it is not a matter of the subconscious, but is a thing of science, art, deliberation,
intent, skill, ability and proficiency. However, the inclination in nature towards this, as the young, makes it the most economical place to start. Too, in the sense of war strategy and tactics, this is a matter of a single fighter versus many, or a small group versus a larger group, where covert actions have the greater sense of employment, versus overt.
Ungyō (吽形) then becomes a matter of the study of power, influence, seduction, rhetoric, restraint, silence, stealth, and so on, that are about developing a proficiency of conflict resolution in the war of life.
Once one has developed in the ways of Ungyō (吽形), guided by the Dao, or the Dō, they will have gained a steady position in self-empowerment and defensive abilities; therefore, be able to acquire knowledge and understanding of overt warfare.
This brings them to Agyō (阿形). In Agyō (阿形) is the mastery of the art of conflict resolution, or war, through the study and development, guided by Dō in the ways of overt power, influence, seduction, and defense.
When one has become proficient, in this order, at both, they have become learned in conflict resolution by covert and/or overt means. And their arrival at this awareness, guided by the Dō, makes them Shukongōshin.
Shukongōshin (執金剛神) is the Warrior-Sage of the Dō, or the Dao. However, at this level, or degree of development, Shukongōshin is one element of the Buddhahood. It is a necessary degree and element to develop and become proficient as a Vajrapani, and one can not become a Buddha if they have not become a Vajrapani.
One may be able to see that Shakya-muni had become just this, in the training and development of his life, before becoming the legendary Buddha.
A Vajrapani is the ultimate inclusion of the philosophical. To be a Dharmapala, or guardian of the Law, is to know the Law, and be in submission and obedience to it, in order to give it and command it.
A Warrior can be seen as a force, but a force needing to be regulated, and the regulator is the Sage. Therefore, mastery is found in the fusion of the two, and in no other way. Force is power, power must be regulated, and wisdom is the regulator.
As paths, as a part of the Dō, Agyō (阿形) and Ungyō (吽形) are not realized through mere study, recitation, and practice. Each of them, as stages in development, leaves their master's mark on the investigator, who must embody the essence and be the being. Only a Shukongōshin embodies Agyō (阿形) and Ungyō (吽形). A practitioner does not embody; they seek to embody. To embody such is to have come to habituate such to a point to where it is one's character predominantly.
All of social interactions, relationships, and that of life have an Agyō (阿形) and Ungyō (吽形) element to it : covert and overt forces, ways, and beings. These ingredients are manifestations of the Dharma, or that of divine reality, and its primary essence, Ratiocination. Dō is Ratiocination, and the guide who directs others on this "Quest" offers Agyō-Dō and Ungyō-Dō.
The practitioner can and must learn these subcategorical disciplines of Agyō-Dō and Ungyō-Dō before they can comprehend all that comes from the entirety of this discipline.
The cipher key to these two terms is esoterically hidden in the term Niō.
Niō decodes what it means to enter the paths of Agyō-Dō and Ungyō-Dō. And that of Shukongōshin (執金剛神) adds to the esoteric insight into the meaning of the entirety of the path. Collectively, they are all under the umbrella of the Niō.
Niō is not the name of these guardians; it is the instruction of the path to investigate, adopt, master, and act in accord with.
The reader/seeker has to embrace the mind and transcend that of the metaphor, the Hindu/Chinese/Japanese imagery, and dig deep to the substance and meaning. The sense of a covert nature and an overt nature baring out through all of existence is the substance. That these are forces needing to be mastered is the point, is the focus, with seeking to be awakened. Realizing these two elements of nature, of reality, is within itself a thing being awakened to. Not simply by intellectually acknowledging them, but by embracing these notions and applying them in one's own existence. This is the Ki; this is the embodiment.
"Life is inherently war, in that it is a conflict concerned with resources. Because of resources, there is competition; competition begets power structures; power structures begets ranks and hierarchies. The war of life is that of acquiring resources, sustaining them, defending them, and either being a subject to one's nature, or a commander of it; subject to others, or free to one's self."
-VOLT
Niō (仁王) or Kongōrikishi (金剛力士)
What is in a term?
I have given the basic and somewhat familiar overview of the characters and statues known as Niō (仁王) or Kongōrikishi (金剛力士).
Now, it is time to strip the images, the mythology, and the cultural restrictions, and see if meaning can be derived from these names, titles, and/or descriptions.
I will begin first with Niō (仁王).
Niō (仁王)
Niō (仁王), as you can see here, is composed of two characters. The first is 仁 and it represents the sound ni in Niō, which can be read in Chinese as ren, and I will get to that.
The second character, 王, represents the ō in Niō.
The first character, carried over from the Chinese, is founded upon Confucian philosophy under the sound ren, and is often translated (though poorly) to mean "benevolent" or "humane". As I will explain later, this is not the way that this character should be rendered, and shall not be the way it is used in Niō Zen.
But I will be seeking to start with the second character first, ō, as it will be faster to explain (I hope). This ō is often translated to mean "king", and this too, left to the simple concept way of thinking, is rather absurd.
The best English term for ō is Sovereign, with Warrior added to it, as implied. I will make this clear first.
Those who are limited to simple concepts define Niō as "benevolent kings".
I will show that this definition is rather useless. When you learn about what they are, and what characteristics they were meant to embody, benevolence and king are nowhere to be found.
I will now turn to Wiktionary to help with these characters. With Wiktionary, one can see the history of the character from bronze inscriptions to that of small seal script.
On the second character of 王 (ō)
The traditional interpretation is that the three horizontal strokes represent Heaven, Man and Earth. The vertical stroke is the king, the one who connects them together. Older representation of the character shows a human like 大 or 天 above a horizontal stroke.
The modern interpretation is that the character is a pictogram (象形) of either an axe or a crown, one of the two symbols of the king's power. A ceremonial axe was kept near the throne and was used for performing rituals in ancient China.
Compare the unrelated 玉 (“jade”) and 主 (“master”).
A king is a social and governmental status, or office. In the history of this character is the speculation of its relationship to an axe and a crown.
The simple concept of king is : he who holds all the power, has armies, is able to use force, commands and controls a populace. This is because to the minds of the masses, this would be what they see, as a role, and the actions taken by those in the role.
However, this is not what is being suggested in the character. It is saying a "king", or 王, is one who unites Earth and Man to Heaven.
Now, think on this. This, 王, is a character. This is not the same as saying "king". Provided is the notion behind 王.
The Niō do not have a kingdom, they do not rule, they do not command armies, and they most certainly do not subjugate. But what they are about is uniting Earth (brute), Man, and Heaven (Dao, Dharma).
This character 王 is accurate to the nature of the Niō, but the English term king is not. What king unites Earth, Man and Heaven? Now, there is this idea in the West called "the divine rights of kings", and this notion that they have been appointed by God to govern and administer upon their subjects humans.
This notion is shared in the East. This notion in the West does not apply to the Niō. This is not what they do.
Let's return to Wiktionary on this matter, to see if there is more to this symbol 王.
Pronunciation # 2
王
† to reign; to rule
† alternative form of 旺 (wàng, “flourishing; prosperous”).
Simple, the one pronounced in the second. The above definitions were in regard to the first way of pronouncing 王, as there are clearly multiple ways to do so. As I have shown previously, king, drawn from the first way of pronouncing 王, does not work for defining and explaining the Niō (仁王).
However, this second pronunciation is clearer.
To reign; to rule
Flourishing; prosperous
One will say, "Well, that is what a king does; he reigns and rules, so it's the same." NO IT IS NOT!
This is the root and essence of the symbol 王. This symbol represents an individual, not a collective or group, and that individual is said to unite Earth, Man and Heaven. Their reign does not have the implication of being over others. Their rule does not have the implication of being over others. This is why the character 王 is an additive. Meaning, it is placed with other characters.
If one was to seek out the characters in Japanese that would represent the concept of Sovereign, they would find these : 君主. Now with this second symbol, one can see it has the appearance of 王, with an added mark above the head. This second symbol is often seen as master, and not the same as king. However, the same notion of uniting Earth, Man and Heaven is present, and master, in most sense, means a ruler, or one with authority.
My position on 王 is that in regard to the Niō, it indeed represents the notion of being a champion, a master, and one who is Sovereign, or has sole reign over themselves.
China has never believed that Sovereignty rests in the "people", or the individual, but in actuality, no matter the professions of any government or ruling bodies, none have recognized Sovereignty in the individual. Though by Reason, if it can be assigned to a group to represent the individual, it must come from the individual. Therefore, non-representative government can not be considered Lawful, sound, just, and Reasonable.
To understand this in Western terms, one needs to be acquainted with the jurisprudent concept of "Right of Agency". Agency is first out of the individual, and then can be given to another by, and only by consent.
王 is one of the oldest symbols for marking that of a ruler, or a king. It was found earlier on a bone carving.
However, its use for the emperor and the ruler was not so common and even abolished at one point.
The Chinese sovereign is the ruler of a particular period in ancient China. Several titles and naming schemes have been used throughout history.
The characters huang (皇 huáng, "august ruler") and di (帝 dì, "divine ruler") had been used separately and never consecutively.
The character was reserved for mythological rulers until the first emperor of Qin (Qin Shi Huang), who created a new title, Huangdi (皇帝 in pinyin : huáng dì), for himself in 221 BCE, which is commonly translated as emperor in English. This title continued in use until the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1912.
From the Han dynasty, the title Huangdi could also be abbreviated to huang or di. The former nobility titles Qing (卿), Daifu (大夫), and Shi (仕) became synonyms for court officials.
This same Shi (仕) would be that used in Bushi, later, for the warrior class of Japan.
Of the Sanhuang Wudi, the three first of them were called 皇 (huang, "august ruler") and the five last were called 帝 (di, "divine ruler"), which can translate as either emperor, demigod human, or a superhuman. This title may have been used in the Shang and Xia dynasties, though oracle bones were found from the Shang dynasty showing the title 王 (wáng, "king").
The king (王, wáng) was the Chinese head of state during the Zhou dynasty. Its use during the Xia and Shang is uncertain but possible : the character has been found upon oracle bones. It was abolished under the Qin and, after that, the same term was used for (and translated as) royal princes. The title was commonly given to members of the emperor's family and could be inherited. A poem from about 2,500 years ago said :
"普天之下,莫非王土.率土之賓,莫非王臣",
which roughly translates as "Under the sky, nothing isn't the king's land; the people who lead the lands, no one isn't the king's subject."
The symbol on the bone carving had that additional mark above, making it closely resembling that of master, or 主.
The king, the emperor, the ruler : these are all terms that have to do with what the individual or group does as a social function. They rule, they regulate, they control, and most of all... they WAR.
Niō (仁王) does this as well. They are guardians of the Law, or the Dharma, they war, they protect, they destroy demons, the wicked and the evil transgressors against those who would be on the noble path. They rule over themselves, and they are not subjects of another ruler.
This, 王, is the symbol for Sovereign, and the shin 神, or the nature of Niō is first and foremost one of self-governance, self-regulation, self-discipline, and self-mastery. This is the first symbol, and the first indication of what all practitioners of "the Way" and all followers of the Dharma should come to embody, and more so, must embody in order to attain Buddhahood.
"Niō is first and foremost a Sovereign, one who has self-rule, self- regulation, self-discipline, self-defense, self-reliance, a rugged individualist set upon the Law to be its guardian."
-VOLT
On Sovereignty
The first character, 王, translated more often than not as king, is in fact the essence of Sovereignty. As previously stated, at what point could it make sense to call the Niō (仁王) kings, metaphorically? It could make sense under the consideration that it is not kings that they are, nor in what Vajrapani is, and nor in what the Buddha was.
Was the Buddha a subject of a king, or that of external rulers, or was he free? Did the Buddha rule his own affairs, his own life, or was he ruled by another human?
If the answer was that he was not ruled, while all others were, then he was a Sovereign, and he had sole rule over himself. However, if he was ruled by others, he would be a subject. What words of liberation does a subject have to offer, if he has not yet set himself free?
Freedom in the social sense, that is, liberty, whereby one is free to live out their own nature, according to their own self-determination, self-reliance, and the enjoyment of the fruits of their actions, WITHOUT that of arbitrary restraint, detention, and/or interference or molestation is CRUCIAL to the entirety of what it is to be awakened and in accordance with the Dharma, or that of the Ratiocinative Law.
This is why Niō (仁王) is the term used to express the collection of the two elements of Vajrapani. It is not in Vajrapani's name, but it is in the other manifestations of his nature, that could be called lesser manifestations, only in that they represent a set of Vajrapani's characteristics, not them all.
What is Sovereignty, and is it of a collective sense, or an individual sense?
On the latter, throughout history, groups have always ruled over the individuals. Group interest, that is, collectivism, has always suppressed individual interest. This too can be said to be the nature of the family unit. At this very step for coming to be, one is subjugated by their family and made to serve the group, that is, the parents' interest.
Ruled by others or self-ruled are crucial to one's lot in life. How you will live is all a matter of what you are doing by free choice, or what is done by compulsion, coercion, manipulation, or pressure. All of these elements are about power, or that of ability. And to not have a Buddha way to this is absurd. But there was a Buddha way to this, as it was held in the personage of Vajrapani. However, it was very clear that unless born with the right nature, the investigator and follower of Buddha could not rise up to this level of self-being. Their petty emotions and their attachments kept them weak, timid, meek, and docile.
The Vajrapani route would not become realized, and therefore, there would be billions of Buddhists, and no Buddha.
What is Sovereignty?
Adjective
Sovereign-
1. Exercising power of rule.
2. Exceptional in quality.
3. (now rare) Extremely potent or effective (of a medicine, remedy etc.).
4. Having supreme, ultimate power.
5. Princely; royal.
6. Predominant; greatest; utmost; paramount.
Noun-
1. A monarch; the ruler of a country.
2. One who is not a subject to a ruler or nation.
3. A gold coin of the United Kingdom, with a nominal value of one pound sterling but in practice used as a bullion coin.
4. A very large champagne bottle with the capacity of about 25 liters, equivalent to 33⅓ standard bottles.
5. Any butterfly of the tribe Nymphalini, or genus Basilarchia, as the ursula and the viceroy.
6. (Britain, slang) A large, garish ring; a sovereign ring.
A synonym of Sovereign is that of autonomous.
This is important to note and cover, because, in actuality, this is the nature of the Sovereignty exhibited in the Buddha, down through Vajrapani, and on to that of the Niō (仁王).
The character 王 begins as a kingly type; then moves in understanding to that of Sovereign, one who is not a subject to a ruler or nation; to then that of the essence of autonomy.
Autonomous-
Adjective-
1. Self-governing. Intelligent, sentient, self-aware, thinking, feeling, governing independently.
2. Acting on one's own or independently; of a child, acting without being governed by parental or guardian rules.
Synonyms-
1. (governing independently): sovereign, self-governing.
2. (acting on one's own behalf): self-standing, self-directed.
Opposite, antonym is :
1. heteronomous
a. arising from an external influence, force, or agency; not autonomous
One does not come to their form autonomous by nature, as they are dependent upon that of external forces to sustain, protect, and guide them. Autonomy is a matured state, whereby the individual must come to self-govern, and self-direct, to self-stand, and be.
However, as is natural to the family units and elements, so then is natural to governments, is that of keeping the young dependent, and not cultivating independence. One goes from being ruled by the family, who is ruled by a government, then of mature body, leaving to join the work "force" and themselves become governed by a government, as their parents were.
Families, MOST, do not train their young to be autonomous, independent, intelligent, and self-reliant. Then too, so do the governments around them not care for this. For he who can care for himself and self-stand has no need for government, but government is always in need of subjects. The Sovereign who is so by having an essence of autonomy is a villain to that of families and governments, because they both seek to keep him dependent and subjugated by their nature. The nature of government is born from the nature of parenting, and both are an oppressive force under domesticated conditions.
There is no coming to be awakened, that is, there is no Bodhi that is dependent, that is, subjugated. Bodhi, or that of awakening and habitually being in accord with known and understood principles of one's being, leads to the need to be autonomous.
He who is not cultivating autonomy in themselves and others is not following or living by a path of awakening, or that of Buddhahood.
"王 is that of Sovereignty, self-rule, which is first and foremost attained by the actor/agent coming to understand their own nature. First understanding that they have a primal element that is bestial and base. Then they have this added element of the mind and deep considerations, free from the passions, engaged in thought and conceiving rightly. And then further more, there is the discovery of the Heavenly mind, or the Sage's autonomy and great wisdom. They then come to connect this base self with the Man self, and the Man self with the Sage self, uniting with the supreme Law of Ratiocination, arriving as a Sovereign, an autonomous Sage."
-VOLT
Conclusion on 王
This symbol has an extensive element to it that is esoteric and instructive. Mastering this symbol is perhaps one of the most difficult things to do. But without the ability to have this as one's essence, then they will not sustain and express awakened realizations. And awakened realizations mean nothing, if not expressed and used as a guide for living.
This symbol, under the context of Niō (仁王), is not to be read as king. It is instead needing to be seen as the symbol for a foreign concept to the Chinese and the Japanese system of governance and Sense of Self, that of self-rule, self-standing, self-directing, and self-governance. This is the symbol of Sovereignty and autonomy. For a single word use, it can be rendered Sovereign in the context of Niō (仁王) Zen, and is not to be rendered king, or by another.
Niō (仁王) is first and foremost an autonomous, self-aware, self-directed, self-reliant, and subject to none, BEING. 王 is the ō in Niō and is pronounced oh; therefore, Niō sounds like neo, but they are clearly not the same, as the latter means new. It's cute that it's the name of the main character in The Matrix, and that can be played with, but such is purely coincidental and unrelated.
Niō (仁王) : on with the treatment of the first character 仁
The first character in Niō (仁王) is now the interest of this section. I saved this character for the last element of the name and term Niō (仁王), due to it being more complex, and having a relationship to the Confucian ren of the same character.
仁 is often translated to benevolence, making the full expression benevolent kings, to which is a horrible translation.
Before I break this character (仁) down, that of ren and ni, let me provide the definition of benevolence :
Etymology of benevolence-
Circa 1400, original sense “good will, disposition to do good”, Old French benivolence from Latin benevolentia (also directly from Latin), literally “good will”, from bene (“well, good”) + volentia, form of volēns, form of volō (“I wish”), components cognate to English benefit and voluntary, more distantly will (via Proto-Indo-European).
Noun-
1. (uncountable) Disposition to do good.
2. (uncountable) Charitable kindness.
(CACA)
3. (countable) An altruistic gift or act.
(CACA)
4. (Britain, historical) A kind of forced loan or contribution levied by kings without legal authority, first so called under Edward IV in 1473.
In common parlance, it comes to mean this :
1. the quality of being well-meaning; kindness.
In the most simplest of form, one can certainly say that Niō (仁王) is "well-meaning", but they are not so with "kindness". They are well-meaning with their wrath and their swift dealing of justice through bringing death to wrongdoers, demons, and evil interference with the Bodhi path.
The Mandarin for 仁 is ren and goes back far longer than the Japanese use of the symbol. However, the Japanese use ni, which is often phonetically that of the number 2. So then it could mean two kings, or two Sovereigns, in that sense; however, this is not the pronunciation of the symbol, outside of a rare use.
Let me first resolve the Japanese use of ni, phonetically.
The symbol for ni is に, whereas the symbol for ren is 仁.
Ni に means into, or becoming; at; to; and upon.
So will the Japanese ni resolve the meaning of this symbol 仁?
The answer is it will not. This symbol 仁 is Chinese, or Mandarin, and though it is mostly rendered phonetically as ren, in this case, it is rendered as ni, but the ni is not of the Japanese phonetic ni, as shown above.
This ni is specific to a region in China and the category of pronunciation is rendered 呉音.
呉音
It is compounded of 呉 (go, “the Wú region of China”) + 音 (on, “sound, pronunciation”), in the category of on'yomi (音読み), the Japanese approximation of the original Chinese pronunciation.
The kanji pronunciation was first brought to Japan via the Korean peninsula. This category was called waon (和音) until the middle of the Heian period, after which it was also called go-on.
Generally, it is regarded as the character reading was brought over long ago from the lower reaches of the Yangtze River (the Wú region). It contrasts with kan'on (漢音), sōon (宋音), and tōon (唐音).
The ni pronunciation of 仁 is brought to Niō (仁王) from this region of China, the Wú region, and is considered an uncommon pronunciation for this symbol, 仁, with ren/rén being the common way to translate it phonetically.
The symbol coming from China, 仁, had made its way like most of the Chinese languages through Korea, to Japan and to Vietnam. The meaning often remains the same. So for benevolence, humaneness, kindness, and kernel (core), this symbol has been shared.
But, like all symbols, there are the shared generalities and meaning in common parlance and common vernacular, and then there is the taken to be deliberated upon meaning, in specific systems, as I shall show with this term, as I seek to unravel its meaning in regard to Niō (仁王).
Benevolence and kindness should not be the first instinct a reader has of this symbol when considering its role in the statues and characters of Niō (仁王). They are not meant to signal this at all. If left solely to say, ''their good intentions in their wrath'', it has some weight, but this would be wasteful. It has to have a greater significance than this assurance. But before I break this down, let me resolve to make ready the character as it is known.
rén
仁
1. compassionate
2. humaneness; benevolence; kindness
3. kernel
Compassion is, as shown before, the sharing in, or cooperation in one's suffering, and the pursuit to alleviate it. This is an empathetic term and it has no sensible place in the analytical nature of Vajrapani and that of Niō (仁王). Benevolence is being that of wishing to do good, and that is being simple enough. However, this kindness, which most would call a good quality, is not a good quality to the awakened mind and character, but is manipulative and degrading. Kindness, the quality of being friendly, generous, and considerate, this too is not the nature of Vajrapani or the Niō (仁王).
It will be hard for most to see a writer speaking of these "human virtues" in such a deplorable way. But this is because the nature of humans is different from the nature of Manu (or Man), but such has not been made clear. Friend means to favor. When one gives favor to strangers and levies no requirement of earning their favor, then what they offer and have is of no value. It is masculine energy to have expectations and it is feminine energy to give freely, and expect not in return—at least on the surface.
To be clear, on the surface means this is never the case, female, or male. Human females deceive in their use of friendliness and acceptance, but that is not for now to speak on.
The Niō (仁王) are not soft and effeminate, and in their character this is deliberately and exaggeratedly made clear for this very reason. Monks and practitioners of Buddhism have been called soft and effeminate as criticism all throughout the history of Buddhism.
They have dominated the monkhood, have written the doctrines, and have represented the Buddha and Buddhism for far too long without being called out. Buddhism was not this way, and the Buddha was a Warrior, a fighter, and a champion. He was Vajrapani, and Vajrapani him; therefore, I must be unkind and rude, yet honest and straightforward in this challenge to the thoughts of would-be readers.
This very notion and English rendering of ren is effeminate, and as I dig deeper, I will reveal that there was a more analytical approach to this term, and what it was to mean in the Niō character and name.
In the definition of ren, we see kernel here coming in as the third, so let me now define that :
Noun-
Kernel-
1. The core, center, or essence of an object or system.
2. The central (usually edible) part of a nut, especially once the hard shell has been removed.
3. A single seed or grain, especially of corn or wheat.
4. A small mass around which other matter is concreted; a nucleus; a concretion or hard lump in the flesh.
5. (computing) The central part of many computer operating systems which manages the system's resources and the communication between hardware and software components.
6. (computing) The core engine of any complex software system.
Perhaps there is some wondering of why I chose to define kernel. Allow me to resolve this matter. When you look to a term, you will have the common parlance, and then you will have that of a deeper notion of the term, often specific, as a lexicon or some other.
Now, kernel is interesting in this term, as it takes on a similar nature to that of shin, as symbolized before as mind and essence.
Core, center, or essence of an object or system; this differs much from compassion, kindness, and humaneness. Yet, in many ways, it is saying that these attributes can be considered the core of something, begging the question : what is the something? The answer is Confucianism. However, I shall first add another element to the mindstream.
Though a core of Confucianism, it is key to understand that core, here, is to say all of what is embodied in this character is a nature of a being, not an acquired state.
In Vietnam, this character has been translated to be the same. However, there was something added to it.
-nhân
Adds with the rest that of :
1. Mercy
And then goes on to have a philosophical and specific notion of the symbol :
1. (philosophy) men; people; mortals (as opposed to the sky and the Earth).
And in its etymology, I find this :
1. cause; reason; ground.
Why is this of interest? Is it a coincidence that Niō (仁王) has these two characters side by side with each other, defining its character? The character 王 has the Earth, Man, and the sky/Heaven united, creating the Sage king or the Sovereign Sage. And here in the Vietnamese rendering of the character 仁, it has a philosophical aspect that states that it is men, people, mortals (as opposed to the sky and the Earth). Not odd?
This means, as a symbol, it represents the middle chamber of 王, not by having the middle line, but by negating or excluding the middle horizontal line, as 仁. As a character, 仁 has a standing beside Man, which, some say, is leading with his heart or a weapon/power. But it says, this is the status of the actor/agent : a Man, or Manu, not base or bestial in the urges, and not yet Sage or of the Heavenly united mind, but a middle gain or a middle ground.
Etymology is showing that : cause, reason, ground. Esoterically, the middle Man that is neither beast, nor yet Sage, is grounded in Reason, or Ratiocination. If a reader understands the depth of this, they will see that I have proven in the symbols used for Niō (仁王) a connection that would be statistically improbable to be guesswork or coincidence.
Reasoning and grounded Man who moves to become—even as ni means, in Japanese, into, onto, or upon—that of a Sovereign Sage who has united the bestial, the Manu, and the Heavenly Sage element of what it is to be Buddha.
Not convinced?
What is the Chinese concept of ren? Finding much on ren can prove difficult. What can be found will be in Mandarin, and translating it can prove difficult. This is not to be considered an exhausted study. However, I must say this will be lengthy, yet necessary to complete this notion of the Niō (仁王), and where the name is supposed to lead those with Vajra mind, or that of the thunderbolt analytical mind.
Ren in the Chinese Confucianism
When you do a quick search of ren, this is what you will find. Let me use Wikipedia, so that I can also teach on a certain matter. This matter is the filter of one's own character and how it shapes what you read and report.
I am going to show you that on this Wiki page, the opening expression of what is ren is nowhere conformed or shaped to be true by the words of Confucius himself, but, in essence, actually having something else to say about ren. When you are not truly literate, you will not see the difference, but it is as clear as telling the sun from the moon.
"Ren (Chinese: 仁) is the Confucian virtue denoting the good feeling a virtuous human experiences when being altruistic. Ren is exemplified by a normal adult's protective feelings for children. It is considered the outward expression of Confucian ideals."
The term altruism refers to an ethical doctrine that claims that individuals are morally obliged to benefit others. Used in this sense, it is usually contrasted with egoism, which claims individuals are morally obligated to serve themselves first.
Altruism, in biological observations in field populations of the day organisms, can be defined as an individual performing an action which is at a cost to themselves (e.g., pleasure and quality of life, time, probability of survival or reproduction), but benefits, either directly or indirectly, another third-party individual, without the expectation of reciprocity or compensation for that action.
Confucianism, in no way, shape, or form, is of interest to me to support, defend, or promote. I am not in accordance with Confucian ideology. Altruism, held by me, is indeed seen to be a human way of behaving and socializing; however, never truly honest, and never truly an authentic possibility. Altruism is a weapon of subjugation that begins with the family and then extends out into the society. It is the weapon of effeminate, soft sissy chumps who are subversive. Altruism is perhaps the most deadly, destructive, and oppressive element of human existence, combined with its product, collectivism, forming the inherent nature of humans to be slavers. However, this inherent nature is "everyone enslaved to everyone".
Altruism has a specific self-sacrificing language to it. When another does a thing for another out of self-desire, wants, wishes, and/or his own nature to do so, it is not altruism.
Now, let Confucius state what ren is :
"Yan Hui, one of the Four Sages, once asked his master to describe the rules of ren. Confucius replied, "One should see nothing improper, hear nothing improper, say nothing improper, do nothing improper."
Confucius also defined ren in the following way :
"wishing to be established himself, seeks also to establish others; wishing to be enlarged himself, he seeks also to enlarge others."
Confucius also said,
"Ren is not far off; he who seeks it has already found it." Ren is close to man and never leaves him."
How does this expression confirm the claim of altruism in the opening expression of the Wiki page?
Answer : it does not.
The first entry into ren was that of stating it is about nothing improper, or that is, nothing of vice, but only that of virtue : virtuous expressions, thoughts, and actions. Then he goes on to say that one, in essence, who invests in himself, expects more of himself, and climbs to a height of his own will inherently wish the same for others and seek to assist them. There is no sense of sacrifice here. This is philanthropy, not charity. There is something expected in return, that being the elevation of the target to that of the one who aimed and assisted. The doer wants for the others that they rise up and attain. This is not altruism, this is a love for Men.
Altruists do not pride themselves on elevation or making gains. The altruist practices humility, shame, humbleness, and lowliness. These terms are all connected to the collectivist and altruist cultures. A Man who seeks to be established and seeks to make gains is looked at as too full of pride and ambition, in altruism, and he is targeted by altruism.
In altruism, the Man Confucius describes is a villain. Altruism needs this Man in servitude and sacrifice to others.
Am I now the one projecting on it my own essence, being an anti-altruist, or that is, pro-pride, pro-strength, and anti-servitude?
The character of interest here (仁) is composed of two forms : 人 (human, a person) and 二 (two), with 人 assuming its common form inside another character, to which various interpretations have been assigned. One often hears that ren means "how two people should treat one another".
This notion of its meaning, of "how two folk should treat each other", is that of the folk etymology that enters the discussion about the meaning of the symbol.
Though it does not resolve the question of the meaning, what it does do is indicate some element of it, in common parlance. The element of how others ought to be with each other is the category of social morality.
Confucius earlier stated, another Man should work towards and want for, in another Man, the heights and powers he has attained—meaning, the goodness he enjoys to be shared in common by others.
In the case of ren, usually translated as "benevolence" or "humaneness", humaneness is human-ness, the essence of being human.
Most will overlook what this means, yet this is the most crucial element. For starters, the term human is being used here and it is not correct. Human has a specific meaning. A human is not that which is Man. They are not synonymous. Human is from humus, earth, clay, dirt, lowly, as opposed to the Gods. Human is equivalent to saying the base and bestial aspect of Man, but Man itself is the middle character.
In these two characters is an entire ideology and esoteric philosophy. The first character of ren does not represent a human : that would be the base line or the earth line. The earth line represents the bestial and primal aspects of the whole Man sense. It is where the passions, the urges, and the sentiments are. Whereas the middle line is that of Man, and the upright designated line changes the whole notion. The first symbol 人 is a base human. The addition of 二 makes the middle Man the second status of the character revelation. It is one who has ascended to another level.
Think on this : not all 人, that is, humans, strive for good; and therefore, strive to assist and aid others to attain the same goodness. This can not be called a human predisposition or proclivity.
If Confucius is declaring that ren is always near to a human, as an element of their being, then he is easily proven wrong by basic experiences held by most. One would need to lie to say that the commons practice uprightness and practice a care, concern, and desire to lift their fellows up. As a behavioral philosopher of an experimental and investigative nature, I have shown and discovered far more often subversive treatment of one's "fellow human", not rational and healthy cooperation.
I do not think Confucius was wrong; I think Confucius, like the Buddha, and like just about every mind on this planet, could not distinguish and discern between human and Man. Why is this 人, and why add 二 if they are the same?
These symbols and their relationship prove my point. Just as in a slight moment, I shall prove that ren was taken in China and among Confucianism to be connected with the uniting of Earth, Man, and Heaven, and that ren is the one doing the uniting. Ren is Man, not human.
This is a brute/bestial : 人.
This is a Man/Manu : 仁.
This is a Sage/Sovereign : 王.
An ancient philosopher once said :
"He who has not even a knowledge of common things is a brute among men. He who has an accurate knowledge of human concerns alone is a man among brutes. But he who knows all that can be known by intellectual energy, is a God among men."
"Man's status in the natural world is determined, therefore, by the quality of his thinking. He whose mind is enslaved to his bestial instincts is philosophically not superior to the brute; he whose rational faculties ponder human affairs is a man; and he whose intellect is elevated to the consideration of divine realities is already a demigod, for his being partakes of the luminosity with which his reason has brought him into proximity."
The complete realization and attainment of this "Quest" is the Niō (仁王). It can be seen as Manu/Man becoming a Sage/Sovereign.
For even in the Wiki, they continue with :
For Confucius the interaction of completely dependent infant and caring parent is the most emotionally charged human interaction, “To love a thing means wanting it to live…”.
Wanting a thing to live, can be said to be wanting it to be expressed in life to the best of its nature. This is no small thing. This is the nature of Man when they have grown and cultivated their intellect, and have come to know what the nature of a thing is.
“Fan Chi asked about humaneness. The Master said it is loving people. Fan Chi asked about wisdom. The Master said it is knowing people”. [...] Another common interpretation of the graphical elements is Man or a man connecting Heaven and Earth.
The topic of ren could not be covered without the Wiki page having to show that the very term itself was connected with the notion of Man, not human, and that of connecting Earth and Heaven.
Why the two characters make up the name Niō (仁王) should become clear. And what it does not say is benevolent king. Benevolence is primal, compared to the expression of ren; it is one element, that of wishing good on others, or to do good. It is too simple. This is an active role in elevating one's self, and then elevating that of others. Active role is key, and hence, why it is not an altruist concept, even if the entirety of Confucianism may be. Ren does not belong to Confucianism.
Now, I am going to continue to comment on the results of one's own search, had one simply used Wiki for this. Watch how my assertions are confirmed, but my wording and commentary is far more insightful and exact.
Wiki :
"Originally the character was just written as丨二 representing yin yang, the vertical line is yang (male, penis, heaven, odd numbers), the two horizontal lines are yin (female, vagina, earth, even numbers), 仁 is the seed and core of everything. The character 人 (man, rén) and 仁 have the same pronunciation.
When a human is unable to be humane, he or she does not qualify to be a human but an animal. But when a human is able to be humane, he or she qualifies to be a human. For example, when Buddhism was first introduced to China in the Han Dynasty the Chinese people translated the Buddha's name into "able to be human" or someone with "ability and humanity" (能人，能仁) because Confucius's teachings and Buddha's teachings are "one to two, two to one."
This is where it gets crazy, so bare with me.
The first thing needing to point out here, in regard to this symbol, is this : Niō (仁王) is divided into two statues with their own names, as expressed earlier. One represents overt power, and the other, covert. They are a more deeper understanding of the masculine and feminine forces of warfare and/or use of force. Their twoness is in the Japanese ni, and as can be seen above, in the character of ren and its twoness.
In Mandarin, the character 人 (Man, rén) and 仁 have the same pronunciation. Now, that is like how human and Man are synonymous in common parlance. Yet, when written, they take on different meanings.
The text goes on to say that when a "human" is unable to be "humane", they do not qualify to be a "human". Let's see that in code. If "X" is not 仁, then "X" is 人. Come on now, you can see this. The text keeps saying human, as the Chinese would say ren for both, but have a qualifier for the attained state of 仁.
When they do not qualify to be 仁, they are called an "animal". The discernment here is between that of human and that of animal. Now, a human that is not humane clearly has not changed its identity, and become something else. So you see, here, this is Man and brute, when one has the proper Reasoning language to command. It is not that they are not human, but it is that to be human is to be more the animal and bestial aspect, than it is to be the elevated and realized Man aspect. Though they are both pronounced ren, they are not one and the same.
This passage should prove to any reader that though said the same, they are not, and that the users of the term placed a qualifier on it, not I. They have declared that to be this 仁, one must be of a certain set of behaviors, and where they fall short of this, they are this 人.
This, 人, is base humanity, primal, and bestial, enslaved to the base instincts, urges, and dispositions.
Here, now, is another clue to come, which reads the character in a direction of reference. Here, a code is before the reader :
"[…] when Buddhism was first introduced to China in the Han Dynasty the Chinese people translated the Buddha's name into "able to be human [man]" or someone with ”ability and humanity" (能人，能仁) because Confucius's teachings and Buddha's teachings are "one to two, two to one."
In China, a different creature than that of India, Buddha's name was rendered as 能 kanji, which means :
ability
talent
skill
capacity
To be, or to become 人, which is the root version of ren, or ni 仁.
The first one is unlikely 人, as it is the most generic, meaning human, many humans, people, worker, employee, and just your all around common sense of human. The latter, as shown above, takes human to another level, and gives rise to the notion of virtuous Man 仁.
This first one (能人) would simply be to say a talented human, but the latter one (能仁) would say a talented and virtuous Man, as I have been showing.
Now, for a workup on this expression :
Confucius's teachings and Buddha's teachings are "one to two, two to one."
No matter what the scholars and the academics may think this to mean, its actual meaning has been rather lost to the many, and retained by the few. In order to give understanding to this, I must start with the assumption that the reader has not thought much about what is Confucianism, and, perhaps, how it differs from Buddhism.
To grant me some ease, I'll let Mr/Mrs Wiki give you some clues :
"Confucianism revolves around the pursuit of the unity of the individual self and the God of Heaven (Tiān 天), or, otherwise said, around the relationship between humanity and Heaven. The principle of Heaven (Lǐ 理 or Dào 道), is the order of the creation and the source of divine authority, monistic in its structure. Individuals may realize their humanity and become one with Heaven through the contemplation of such order. This transformation of the self may be extended to the family and society to create a harmonious fiduciary community. Joël Thoraval studied Confucianism as a diffused civil religion in contemporary China, finding that it expresses itself in the widespread worship of five cosmological entities: Heaven and Earth (Di 地), the sovereign or the government (jūn 君), ancestors (qīn 親) and masters (shī 師)."
Confucian ideology, be it spiritually thought, religious, or government, as it covers all factors, is one not where the individual is a primary, but the whole of society is the primary. The individual has the expectation of being "virtuous", but that which is "virtuous" is more about "justice", or how they interact with and towards others. One's "Quest" has to take into consideration their family, their community, and their rulers, and it can be said that one of this belief is truly being softened up to be exactly that, RULED. Taoism was a foundation to the metaphysics of Confucian ideology. But Taoism is not a system where rulers are seen to be from and of the Heavens, as they are attempted to be connected in that of Confucianism.
Taoism preaches for a ruler to rule in accordance with the Tao, and there would be harmony. It does not suppose, by nature, they already do.
Confucian ideology places the family as a supreme variable of ethics, and how one relates to it, and the bigger family of society, and the greater parents of governance. Whereas Buddhism has its practitioners leaving behind family and the world, so as to devote themselves to becoming awakened, and in doing so turn to wish this awakened nature for that of others, thus promoting it. In Buddhism, the family, the community, and the government are not seen as inherently divine.
In Confucian ideology, they start off by preaching that humanity has this teaching ability, and ability to be "schooled" or educated into virtue.
Confucius's teachings and Buddha's teachings are "one to two, two to one."
仁
As a symbol, 仁 is the clue to what this expression means. Originally, this symbol was arranged like so,
丨二, with the two being separated. On the left was male,丨, and on the right, female, 二.
This expression of "Confucianism being one to two" and "Buddhism being two to one" has a deeper learned meaning. It is a question of the direction to read the character in. Niō helps with me unveiling this to you, the reader, because Niō is first divided into two : Ungyō and Agyō. As the two statues, they embody the lessons of the absolute, when discernment is applied and analysis ran. They are made two so that one can arrive at their oneness Shukongōshin, the other name for Vajrapani. If Buddhism was the one to two, it would be that the Niō would be an unfoldment of the greater characteristics of Vajrapani, not his lesser characteristics.
This lesson, hidden in Vajrapani and sustained in the Niō, is hinted at by having this symbol so strongly connected. We are told what direction to read it from, that of two to one.
In Confucianism, the one, meaning the individual, is to support the many, the collective. So the virtue of the one becomes the virtue of the community, and the virtue of the government, all united under Heaven. It is the masculine evolving to the feminine, in Confucianism, as it is in the minds of most humans.
A human male who is born feminine, soft, and meek in nature can not become masculine, hard, strong, and empowered. However, a male or female born masculine can be softened up and made effeminate, emasculated, and soft.
The Confucian track is domestication and subjugation, which is the feminine force, whereas the Buddhist track, before taken hostage by effeminates, was that of rising up out of the nature of powerlessness, as a child, and into the power of the Manu, or Maan, in vitality, strength, and Sovereignty.
So then the Buddhist direction starts with the two, because all humans, masculine or feminine, come through as children, which is a feminine condition. As a female and male human are then raised and cultivated, both are supposed to be cultivated into masculine variables and ways. An effeminate male will not be able to and will stay behind; a masculine female will be able to and advance in wholeness in her being, as would a masculine male.
Masculine males will be more suited to the masculine course. Masculine females will make for their amazing consort. But a masculine male, combined with a feminine female, who then comes to spend a great amount of time and space together, will become an emasculated male. The only prevention to this is that masculine human males are supposed to be with those females who were raised out of and through femininity to that of masculinity, having both characteristics in her.
Males used to be raised out of the femininity of childhood and into the masculinity of adulthood, when they were kept around masculine males. In all humans is the feminine start as children. But not in all humans is the masculine rise into adulthood and maturation. This is the one, in the two to one. The two must come to the one, and then the symbol is complete, as ni in Niō. But in Confucius' ideology, one is to be a good son, daughter, and subject, and this is virtue. This is one to the two, emasculation of that of entire societies. And this was done to all of China over the ages, as it can be seen.
Yin and yang, as that of complimentary opposites, mean the same, but as can be seen in them is that smaller circle of the opposite color. Females may be inherently feminine, and males inherently masculine, as they were before being tampered with, but until the other element is involved, they do not become complimentary. The feminine youth of a male enriches his masculine adulthood as a male. The feminine youth of the female is enriched by her addition of the masculine. The masculine is the outward power and expression of the being.
All beings, when in expression, are masculine. All beings, when idle and reserved, are feminine, in this sense. Where the feminine rules out, there will be fear, insecurity, doubt, and undermining forces. But when the feminine care and concern is raised through the masculine action and overcoming of fear, you have the courageous and the strong. This is meant to be the healthy inclination of males and females of humans and Manu. However, humans are enslaved to their bestial natures, and they will have these elements in too much. A male can be too masculine and a female too feminine. Or a female can be too feminine, and then bring males to emasculation, making them too effeminate. A masculine male can not bring an extreme feminine female to be masculine, but she can bring him to be emasculated.
This is a description of human behavior and influences. None of the results are a statement of evil or wrong doing in female or male humans. It is a description of what is, and what happens, and the amount of data I have used to formulate this understanding is far beyond any of that used by the masses, the scholars, and the academics to conclude in their Sense of Self and Sense of Life. If one comes to state I am in error, and they refute this, there is a good chance they need it to be wrong, because otherwise, they face the reality of the fact that they are servile and perhaps meant to be, or that they are servile and they are not supposed to be, but too much of a coward to do anything about it.
No one will refute this from a masculine energy. They will only refute it from an overly feminine energy. This is the nature of the feminine energy to absorb the masculine and to bring it into conformity and subjugation, as designed by nature, not by the free will of the subject of nature called human male and female.
Must be noted, that the terms feminine and masculine are not actually accurate and exact for what I describe. In the future, I will fix this.
This element hidden in the name of Niō is a significant lesson for guiding the one who awakens to its path. It puts them on guard, but more so, it gets them analyzing the self to see where they are in this fold. If one finds they are an overly feminine female, or overly feminine male, then they should learn in this that Niō Zen can not do anything for them, because nature has restricted the flow. Nature has stated that if you did not develop into masculinity, from your youth, female or male, you are unlikely to be able to. However, if one can see they were meant to, then there is a good chance their social behavior was conditioned, but their nature has not been stunted. Emasculated males never show this to be true. Once they are emasculated, it is not likely they can come out of it.
Here is where the element of "NOT compassion" comes in, but that of recognizing that things are what they are, and they can not be pressured to be otherwise. Humans suffer because of domestication not being based upon human primal urges, to which they are enslaved. And I wish this was not the case, but the only solution is for humans to stop masquerading as Reasoning creatures and revert back to primal ways. That is not within my power to bring about. Therefore, I wish what is best for humans, and I am not what is best for humans.
I am what is best for those who can be the two to become the one, working their way through the primal feminine energy of childhood and into the masculine energy of adulthood, towards that of self-empowerment, rational self-interest, and the pursuit of self-mastery. All of this is not the human nature, which is to serve female interest and that of offspring. Buddhism is not about human nature, it is about the nature of Maan, or Manu, and when humans become Buddhists, they will be liars, deceivers, misdirectors, charlatans, and be innately subversive to its true ways.
Buddhahood, or that of awakened living and habits, is not relevant to male or female. As I have stated, I have known and trained more females to a higher level than males. The variable is that one becomes not male and female in their pursuit of life. This is not to say, it matters not and they ought to ignore it, for this is not so, but it is to say that when the mind acts upon reality, runs its process, their male and female essence should not be a factor in their decision making process.
When males and females have arranged themselves into natural human family units, and they produce offspring, and serve in the role of sustaining, as primary motivator, these offspring and each other as a cooperative couple, then their interest are human interest, not the interest of Manu, and therefore, not Buddhahood. One can not hold both in the same value scheme, but a human can and has most certainly been an admirer of Buddhism, only looking at it what they find to be of themselves, and never coming to truly know how not for humans Buddhism is and has always been.
Resolving and defining the name Niō, as it is used and meant to be used, in Niō Zen
As the nature of this first release is to be a technical manual, there is this need for me to try as best as possible to refrain from stream writing and expression. This is a difficult matter, because my mind is not fashioned for mere technical discourse, but is fashioned for insight and depth into all matters, and there is a great deal to have to cover.
After this technical manual has been established, there will be lessons that proceed from it, more subject to philosophical depth. But in the mean time, the objective is to have a resource manual the reader can use to check their understanding of the terms and their meaning, and in this case, the terms laid down in the title of this set of lessons.
When the terms become defined and settled, it is the authority on what the terms mean and shall mean under the context and use of Niō Zen, if the need arises to discern it further.
Here and now, then, will be presented the conclusion translation, meaning, and commentary on the term Niō.
Conclusion on Niō (仁王)
Niō (仁王) is not to be translated as "benevolent king". Niō (仁王) is not to have, in essence, two single English terms meant to capture it.
Niō (仁王) is Niō (仁王), and it contains a great deal of meaning, and it is a trigger for a lesson. So then when one asks what is Niō (仁王), the source they are asking either offers up the entirety of the lesson or nothing at all. To say it means benevolent king, in regard to Niō (仁王), in that of this here system, would be an affront, and one will quickly find themselves not included in any activities and interactions with those who come to form around this lesson.
The first character is 仁 and it represents the sound ni in Niō.
The second character, 王, represents the ō in Niō.
This character, 仁, in the lesson of Niō (仁王), begins with this expression:
"He who has not even a knowledge of common things is a brute among men. He who has an accurate knowledge of human concerns alone, is a man among brutes. But he who knows all that can be known by intellectual energy is a God among men."
"Man's status in the natural world is determined, therefore, by the quality of his thinking. He whose mind is enslaved to his bestial instincts is philosophically not superior to the brute; he whose rational faculties ponder human affairs is a man; and he whose intellect is elevated to the consideration of divine realities is already a demigod, for his being partakes of the luminosity with which his reason has brought him into proximity."
The symbolic reference to this in the Niō (仁王) is 人 仁 王. In English, they can be called :
1. Brute 2. Man 3. Sage.
For the masses that are called simply human, this symbol is used: 人.
It is often pronounced ren, as is the middle term, often not distinguished in pronouncement.
However, the character 仁 is to be pronounced ni, and is not to be taken to be synonymous with that of ren. Ren is a brute, a human, one who is enslaved to its bestial urges. This is to say, its interest is base, primal, urge based, emotional, and of the lower realm of being. This, however, is no slander, no statement of lesser or wrong in regard to the being. It is a core nature, a core essence that is being described, not how one chooses, wishes to be, and wishes not to be. Therefore, brute is not looked down upon for being a brute, just not chosen to engage in that of Manu or ni activities.
This is about the Laws of essence, or identity, that a thing has a core set of attributes and characteristics that comes into expression as an innate predisposition and character. Then they have these innate predispositions mixed with conditions, and the outcome is their persona, their character.
This character 仁 represents the dual nature of Manu, rising through the subtle and latent powers, yet to be matured, where covert and hidden realms of power display exist, and the individual is often under the compulsion and the overt power displays of others, seeking to rise to their own power.
This character, 仁, is a reference to coming out of the passive state of childhood to the active state of matured; out of the state of ignorance, and into the state of knowledge and awareness; out of the state of inept, and into the state of skilled and talented. It is in regard to a natural hierarchy of coming to the light of one's self and the light of others, that is, looking into one's own nature and disposition, and that of the nature and disposition of others, and acting accordingly (Dharma).
This symbol, 仁, when it is completed as seen here, is that of having come to the power of the Manu, and being free of the bestial urges and pulls that plague humanity, so as to have free in use the mind as the master.
When one is transitioning in their practice, but yet to embody, they are 丨二, where the two and the one are separate. They are to read it as the two becoming one, and the two is the first in mastering latent powers and abilities, and the other is that of coming into the talent, the capable and the overt power of one's being. When the two have been established, they are the wisdom of the covert and the overt, and the one is when they have united to compliment each other, forming the virtuous and awakened Manu in 仁.
This symbol, therefore, becomes that of the Reasoning habit towards excellence, that of virtuous Manu of mind and character.
The Quest of this Manu is commenced in that of the disciplines of thought concerning the awakened mind : that of ontology (physics/identity); that of epistemology (knowledge); that of logic (valid reasoning/dialectics); that of ethics (values, pursuits); coming to form in aesthetics (expression of the noble and beautiful); that of jurisprudence (justice); and finally, that of life's greatest attribute, WAR (conflict resolution).
In their seven order and form, they are :
1. Ontology
2. Epistemology
3. Logic
4. Ethics
5. Aesthetics
6. Jurisprudence
7. WAR
This character has, as a part of its nature, an entire curriculum of characteristics and attributes that are called Manu. Manu is not a state that is attained by humans. The capacity and inclination of a Manu is innate to the individual, and it is marked by a courage to climb towards Ratiocination, no matter the obstacles. It is a mark by courage to act in and on virtue, once identified, versus that of a battle with vice.
Battling vice is a human concern, and he who must be pulled out of and from vice is a human, not a Manu. If a Manu in captivity had taken to vice, they would come out of vice as a given, and when they can, embrace that of virtue, once discovered.
仁 is about the individual standing of the being, as being with power, sincerity, and devotion to their own life, as they engage in that of the two becoming one.
When this character has been mastered, the Manu is readying towards the oneness of Shukongōshin (執金剛神), also called Vajrapani. This oneness is not attained by Manu, but Manu must become the Sage of Shukongōshin (執金剛神), which is lettered with, or symbolized with the second character of Niō (仁王).
The second character is 王 and it represents the Sage Sovereign course of the Manu, brought to completion. It is where the individual Manu has become resolved to neither subjugate others, nor be a subject themselves, instead getting their mandate from that of the Dharma, the divine Law of Reality, as it is able to be discovered by submission and obedience to the prime attribute of the divine, that attribute of Ratiocination, the only means whereby a Manu can come to understand and contemplate that of the Dharma.
The Sage comes to embody and be devoted to that of Ratiocination, which has illuminated to them the nature of the brute, Manu, and that of the divine Law, poorly called the Heavens.
The Sage coming in full form to their own nature, and full knowledge of the nature of the other kinds, comes to understand the divine Law, in how all things must be treated and cared for, adopted, and/or destroyed.
The Sage comes to embody the divine Law, Dharma, and has no choice of obedience to it. Obedience to it is obedience to their own nature. They become one and the same.
Too, in this character, 王, is kept the notion that in all Sages, there is that of the brute, the Manu, and all corporeal matters. Therefore, in the unification of all three, their proximity to the divine Law, or Dharma, has been acquired.
This means there is no forsaking the previous foundation, nor any suspension of what it is. A Sage does not remove from their being that of being a heterotroth, that of being bipedal, with erect carriage and freed up arms, and a mind that is auto-tuned to that of abstract thought, and dependent upon a symbolic reference of self and reality. All of what was in the brute is still in them who are Sage, and all of what was Manu is still in them who are Sage. Ratiocination that guided Manu does not come to cease to be the primary attribute of being, when one becomes a Sage. It is not that in such attainment, one has come to some supernatural notion of reality. Instead, it is that whereas for Manu, the act of Ratiocination had to be deliberate, and worked upon, and one could slip from its illumination, and back into the dark, such a thing of falling becomes uncommon and unlikely to the Sage.
This is to say, they have moved from Ratiocination by deliberation, to Ratiocination by algorithm, and established habit and auto-ability.
Ratiocination is the attribute of illumination from all aspect of this traversing order of quality of thought, and therefore, quality of character.
In the condition of 人, Ratiocination does not exist. That of reasoning with a lower case r does. As in this state, reason serves the interest of the passions, the emotions, the feelings, and the inclinations of the human, the brute. It is a matter of order, mere utility, usefulness, and servitude that any sense of reason is present. First, the brute feels, wants, desires, and wishes, then they employ a small form of reasoning towards acquiring. And when they fail, they will feel the negative emotions of duhkha, that of displeasure. They will then attempt to employ reason on why, so that they can gain and succeed, but again, however, not stopping to employ a reason on what values they should have had to begin with.
Their hungry mind is called a hungry ghost, or preta, and it only employs a form of reason to try to make sense of their failures and successes, at serving their hunger, their insecurities, their fears, and doubts. That of reason as a slave makes for a horrible slave, as the master is hunger, impulse, and urge.
In the character of 丨二, the practitioner, called a Vespillo, does not know yet what they were intended by nature to be, less their disposition is quite loud, as the disposition of many are. If one is pulled heavily towards the emotions and the hungers, they are human, and ought to drop from the cultivation of the Manu. For they will make reason a slave, and punish themselves often, when they fall short of being Manu, and also come to believe all others who may be Manu are in fact lying, deceiving; therefore, they come to do just that in this course. In that of Buddhism, it was possible for preta and brute minds to fill its ranks, don its costumes, speak its words and mantras, and pass as sincere. But this is not possible in this system that has degrees of knowledge and proficiency, and better yet, an advanced measure of profiling based not on ancient restrictions to data, but that of data collection of modern cataloging and bases of science. In this condition of
丨二 (Vespillo), those who are sincere or not will be easily determined.
There will be those inclined to read it from one to two, and those inclined to read it as two to one, and the latter shall prevail, while the former, receive little to no attention and access.
This is the nature of Ungyō to move from that of the open mouth of Agyō, to that of the closed and secretive mouth and mind of Ungyō. The dead of mind, the hungry ghost, the preta mind, receive the death sound un, when they ask for more; all things treated to their nature.
When those who have shown to be two becoming one 丨二, they will be raised in doctrine of Ratiocination and its master role. Here, at the condition of 丨二, one can not say that they have habituated that of Ratiocination.
They have, perhaps, been working hard to develop the skills and proficiency, abilities, and talents, as is contained in the
丨二 (Core Investigation), but until Ratiocination becomes habit, where their character is defined by it with no less than an 80/20 ratio, then they have not entered the condition of the talented and virtuous Manu 仁.
This condition of 仁 is not measured by acts of charity, philanthropy, or the care for others. It is measured by one's care for one's self, their knowledge of their own nature, and the attainment of finding the number one guide to all decision making, that of Ratiocination.
Then in their individual lives, they must have programmed their living to be in accord with Ratiocination. This is very difficult to do, when a member of the collective society.
This is why the monastery was created, and somehow, must be created for this "Quest" in the future, yet have some market value exchange, and/or that of an off-the-grid sustainable region and set of resources management.
The mind of 仁 may seek to be free, but the corporeal realm and its Laws will still have the ass of their 人.
The human brute aspect, symbolized in 人, is still present in 仁, in that of being corporeal and dependent upon resources. This does not leave simply because the mind has evolved into a thing suited for Ratiocination.
The 仁 will find very quickly, when starved, when deprived of sleep, troubled and tested, that the 80/20 ratio can be flipped to 20/80 real quick. The first place of / is the conscious and active mind, and after /, in the second place, is the primal and bestial mind. Therefore, to be 80/20 is to be in control and active in one's being, and to be 20/80 is to see that shift to automation and primal and bestial dictates. At present, most ren, or 人 are at 10/90. It is that, duhkha, strife, is so prominent, when one is thinking with 10 points of potency, but betraying their own thoughts with 90 points of potent primal actions and motivations.
The 仁 will seem, in many regards, conditional. This means if the conditions right for Ratiocination are not sustained, then the conditions of being Ratiocinative in habit can be lost. One can fall back to the hungry ghost, inside them, pulling them towards mere survival, and basing them back in the brute, which has its rightful place.
This is why the brute is not evil, bad, or wrong. It has its place. In primal settings, the brute is king, is the right guide. It has to deal with rapid stimuli of threats and danger, and thinking or too much mind would get it killed. Therefore, the brute, like the Sage, has an innate code that can become automated. The innate code of the brute, automated, subconscious, and hardwired is that of the passions, the urges, and the hunger. It directs the biological machine of the brute to conquer, to prevail, to destroy, and to care for... The corporeal sense of itself.
This is a necessary component of this entire experience of being embodied. However, under domestication, this brute Sense of Self and its chemical forces are not properly exercised and/or expressed, and therefore, they lead to incompatible interactions. Brutes are living in a mind organized world, where reason was employed by their rulers to make resources management more economical. But in this management, the rulers of brutes needed to remove the primal and necessary aggressive elements of the brute breed; therefore, making it passive and sick.
When one rises out of the brute state—if not intended to remain there by nature—and into the 仁, they still must contend with the question of resources and their management.
The sage 王 discovered that the answer to this is to realize that the hungry ghost brute, their wants, needs, and desires are not to be your own, that Ratiocination seeks to sustain its expression in you. And therefore, you care for the form you need, as it is your temple and vessel, but you do not do it for the brute interest of replicating your genes, through procreation and relational interest aimed at resource cooperation. Instead, the Sage came to say, "withdraw" from that of society, and take refuge among those having withdrawn too because of the same nature and conflict of interest.
However, the Sage of the past conditions often did not seek to distinguish between 丨二 and 仁 (Vespillo and Manu). Therefore, those having taken refuge have been those claiming the practice represented in 丨二, yet their nature had them reading that one becomes two, that is, the masculine is emasculated to the feminine, and human hungry ghost interest will take precedence, only under the hidden and covert guise of the refuge. It would not take long before the refuge was used and abused by 丨二人 (Vespillo humans), versus the intended 丨二仁 (Vespillo Manu).
丨二 symbol, as the distance is present between the two, can be called the Core Investigation (CI). It can represent the two variables concerning one's learning of the overt and latent powers, of all power structures in nature and in human, and beyond decision making. And therefore, any can claim to be studying and interested in the process, but the nature of one to two, or two to one will determine how they come to understand the Core Investigation (CI).
So for example, I am Shukongōshin (執金剛神) and my character is clear. I come then with this message and Core Investigation (CI), after it had been hidden in plain sight for so long, in that of the Niō (仁王).
Embodying the Core Investigation (CI), embodying Ratiocination, in submission to it, obedience to it, and habitually forward in my ways, in accord to it, I see all of Ratiocination as master in the Core Investigation (CI).
However, if I was not 王, then it would mean I was not likely 仁, so therefore, 人. Under this condition, I would not be able to sincerely understand and adopt anything that will come out of the lessons, if the lessons were fashioned by a condition born out of 仁.
Instead, as the 人, I would have to focus on one element, that of suffering, that of sharing in suffering, that of alleviating suffering, and that of coming together with others who suffer too, and seek to alleviate. And then the whole doctrine becomes about suffering. This, 仁, becomes he who seeks to alleviate the suffering of others. Though even in the Confucian ren, it meant he who seeks for others the greatness he has found in himself.
It has always meant seeking to enrich, strengthening, and better, seeking to illuminate a thing to be gained, not a thing to end. But those who have a nature of being oppressed by that very nature, which is the condition of being 人, will then see the world and reality all in the field of ending or alleviating that suffering. Throughout the ages, alleviation of suffering has fueled every market of vice : alcohol, forbidden in Buddhism, heavy sexual appetite, forbidden in Buddhism, and mental evasions, forbidden in Buddhism. Today, you can get high and call yourself a Buddhist, arguing "weed" was never forbidden, missing the entire point of Buddhism and why certain things were looked down upon in regard to the "Quest" of awakening. Pot smoking makes you effeminate, and it makes your mind evade Reason, not move towards it. One who says—and there are so many who do—I know so and so who smoke pot, and they do these smart things, has no concept of what Reasoned intelligence is. Yes, you can go through life high, and a profession high, succeed and evolve within it, but this is not the mark of the quality of your thinking and character. Society and its jobs are not awakened venues, they are all in service to the hungry ghost mind, the preta mind, and that of the brute and the nature that binds the brute.
I have met so many 人 Buddhists who have a great deal of vices and call themselves a Buddhist, if not even use its foolish doctrine to make sense of their debauchery, in the name of freedom to vice. This is how 人 use doctrine, or 丨二. All-inclusive systems will attract 人, who in these systems will find others they will then transfer their emotional burden on, as a means to give to their inner child the attention it is so hungry as a ghost for.
Ambiguous and undefined systems make way for all-inclusiveness, and attract the masses of hungry ghost children looking to consume all the good there may be, and twist it into the nightmare that causes a child to scream. Most do not realize how much a child simply wants to scream in hunger. The screams do not mean sincerity, in seeking to end the state of the hungry ghost child. No, they are the screams of the hunger, and not for what words the child says is the hunger.
仁 condition still needs the Core Investigation (CI) of becoming
丨二 (Two to One); therefore, this Core Investigation (CI) must be precise, well-defined, and extensive. It is a resource for the 仁. The 仁 will then, in discovering in their own life, the wonders self-mastery, environmental control, and discernment lead to, and want this light to be enjoyed by others. So the 仁 then moves out to try to spread it to all, often indiscriminately. 仁 does not know its own nature, and therefore, does not know the nature of 人. Making it humorous, that the name of the Buddha, written in China, was 人 at times, and then by the smarter writers was this, 仁.
Yes, this was perhaps the greatest level of the Buddha, or Sakyamuni. It most certainly was the limit exhibited in the system he left behind, as either his 人 followers failed to include it, intentionally excluded it, or he, Sakyamuni, was not awakened to the numerous stocks or kinds of hominins that exist on this planet and what factor this had in their approximations to the mindstream.
人 does not know its nature. 仁 does not know its nature, but can begin to think on the nature of 人 and itself, 仁. 王, in its unification, is not only coming to the three natures it embodies, but unifying them into its own being.
It can know the nature of the three conditions, and discern between them. It can see the type, at first sight, profiling it, based upon nature's imprint in the physical appearance and make of the stock.
仁 will want for others what gains it has gotten for itself. This is only natural. But when it attempts to spread the doctrine 丨二 indiscriminately, then it will have ready to receive hungry 人. Those new to the condition of 仁 will then fall out of it, and back to 丨二, but likely reverse in its reading to that of one to the two, versus two to the one, and come quickly to see they, in fact, were never 仁 to begin with, as serving the interest of others for a sense of belonging and worth places them in the 人.
Note:
This, 丨二, when called doctrine, is to be read, one to two, or two to one, unsettled. When called the Core Investigation, it is the methodology of Niō Zen.
This is like saying, the 人 (ren) when engaged in a doctrine, can only read, one becoming the two, that is, collectivism, and altruism. It can never read it two becoming the one, or that of the unified forces of the latent, and the realized, masterfully united. Therefore, it is simply doctrine, and not the CI, and never was for the 人 (ren).
This is why a 丨二, Core Investigation (CI), must teach this discernment. It must be composed of a great deal of mental disciplines aimed at sharpening the mind's war instruments of thought, that of identity, knowledge, logic, values, expression, justice, and war, from that of latent power and that of power achieved. And this is the Niō-Dō.
The sage 王 has mastered his essence, has looked deep into his nature and has prevailed as a commander of it.
Therefore, he can not permit another nature to subjugate his nature to its interest and ways, and so he stands Sovereign, under self-rule and self-governance, and he does not become concerned with the condition of 人 brutes, but he instead turns his mind's eyes to that of those who can exercise their faculty of Reasoning, and be free from the passions and base urges to become 仁 (ni). For those who can habituate Ratiocination can rise up to identify their nature and the nature of others, and when this has become solid, ascend to their own unification in self with Ratiocination, and Ratiocination becomes their nature, automatic and true.
This is the meaning of the Niō as it is rendered in the title Niō Zen, 仁王, Beyond Sissy Buddhism!
