The Zennist

The best way

Sure, I agree that the food a menu list is not the same as eating real food, or a finger pointing to the moon is not the real moon.  And so it goes with books about the Buddha’s wisdom.  They cannot present actual enlightenment to us even if the words come from the mouth of Gautama.  

So what is the best way to deal with this problem?  Should we ignore such books and just sit in zazen?  But what if doing zazen is like pretending to be sitting in a restaurant believing we just had a great meal or are about to be served?  

What if the real goal of Zen is to realize the most fundamental stuff or tathata of the universe from which even our thoughts and emotions are composed which is also pure Mind?  How do we go about that?  Surely ‘just sitting’ or shikantaza will not take us there.  Posture does not equate with awakening to the most fundamental stuff of the universe.  Still, I suppose some Zennists believe that ‘sitting Zen’ or zazen is the answer.

Zen, itself, or dhyâna is not the practice of positioning oneself into a sitting posture.  Zen has nothing whatsoever to do with sitting upright.  Dhyâna, itself, is about transcending our entire mental life which results in direct union with pure Mind which is radiant and like clear light.  For the first time we see that all phenomena, including mental phenomena are dependent originations which depend on pure Mind or tathata.  This is the supreme truth, in other words.

On the other hand, if we attach to any mental phenomenon or ritual practice such as zazen or chanting we shall never accomplish the highest dhyâna.  Such practices can deceive us insofar as we believe they will somehow lead to a direct intuition of pure Mind. 

 

Watkin's spiritual list to the rescue

Spiritual wisdom is supposed to be direct knowledge of spirit or absolute Mind, itself.  This is something only a sage knows or has realized.  Everybody else is drifting along more or less deluded who have other important things to do besides sitting in a cave focused on seeing the clear light Mind.  They have a job, their family and children to worry about.  All this is important, but only from a relative point of view.

So somebody has to minister to these lost people.  But who can do it?  Watkin's Spiritual 100 List is a list of the who's who in the day-to-day world of spiritually oriented consumers who are starting to sense that life is not a bouquet of freshly cut roses.

I am sure more names could have been added to extend the list considerably.  One hundred names are not exhaustive.  Still, this list of names gives us a fairly good idea what spiritual consumers are looking for.  

However, much of the spiritual medicine offered by many members of the list is not fundamentally spiritual.  Much of the medicine, I would argue, falls under the category of hedonism.  Such can be thought of as joyful avoidance which is bent upon avoiding the heaviness and gloom of life so as to take renewed delight in the senses.  This includes learning to be in the here and the now, or the same, the present moment.  It also means to be free of Freud's ego which is always trying to dethrone the pleasure-principle.  Joyful avoidance includes learning to be free of restrictions and boundaries which thus allows us to search for new meanings, interpretations, and purposes which avoid authentic spirituality.

For those of us who still have a spiritual conscience left, Watkin's Spiritual 100 List is entertaining; which can be easily satirized.

 

Buddhism with and without faith

 The Pali word for faith is saddhâ (in Sanskrit it is shradhâ) which is not unlike the English sense of faith or belief.  In early Buddhism saddhâ, while being very close to the English sense had, also, a more cognitive meaning which made it instrumental in leading to enlightenment.  This is evident in this passage:

“The faculty of faith, bhikkhus, is a state conducive to enlightenment; it leads to enlightenment” (S. v. 227).  

The cognitive sense is better illustrated in this passage from the Bodhirajakumara Sutta.

“What do you think about this, Prince?  A man might come along here, and think: ‘Prince Bodhi knows how to ride elephants and the art of handling the goad.  I will train myself in elephant-riding and the art of handling the goad under him.’  But had he no faith he could not attain whatever is to be won by faith” (M. ii. 94).

In this example of faith, it eventually leads to becoming a competent elephant rider and handler of the goad.  If the man lacked faith or belief in the Prince’s abilities he would be unable to attain mastery of elephant-riding.  This is not to say that faith is final.  It is not.  In Buddhism faith or saddhâ is only a means to knowledge or awakening.  When one fully 'knows', there is no need for faith.  In fact, the Arhat is free from faith (assaddho, Dhammapada 97) insofar as he knows the increate (akataññû).  

Modern day Buddhists who want to take faith or belief out of Buddhism are doing a great injustice.  They deserve our just contempt.  In fact, there is no such thing as Buddhism without faith or belief—not if you happen to be a beginner or even a veteran who is still unable to awaken. 

 

Picking up the pebbles

Yesterday, I thought to myself that if Buddha Mind were like nuggets of pure gold lying everywhere on the ground, people would still be bemoaning their poverty.  With the exception of a few old sages (and black dragons), nobody would be picking up any of the nuggets of gold.  On this same score, more Buddhists should be picking up these nuggets or at least learning how to identify them; distinguishing them from pebbles.  They are not doing this.

First of all, it is mind blowing to see so much literature in Chinese Zen and Tibetan Buddhism that deals with Buddha Mind, and the Buddhist absolute in general (e.g., nirvana, Buddha-nature, etc.).  All of it underscores that realizing Buddha Mind is the alpha and omega of Buddhism.  In spite of this, the pertinent question arises, why is Buddha Mind so rarely discussed in the circles of Western Buddhism if at all?  Frankly, I really don’t have a clear and convincing answer.  As far as I can tell, The Zennist blog is one of the few Western Buddhist blogs that discusses Buddha Mind as it should be discussed including its other forms such as Bodhicitta, pure Mind (cittamatra) and so on.

I am simply amazed by the strange attitude of Western Buddhists who defend and believe that the Buddha actually taught some kind of modern day form of materialism and skepticism.  This is complete hogwash.  The Buddha was dead set against materialism and skepticism (the basis for my saying this is found in K. N. Jayatilleke’s book Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge which covers extensively both the positions of “Sceptics” and “Materialists” including their arguments). 

I guess I should not be too surprised to find that modern day Buddhists are inventing a counterfeit Buddhism as a way to get around what the Buddha really taught.  To be sure, what they have come up with is not the Buddhism when, for example, it comes to speaking of nirvana as being “a transcendent isle where decay and death are no more.”  Instead, it is a Buddhism that says, “If you live with a difficult person, that’s nirvana” (Joko Beck) or “Touching the moment means touching the truth” (Katagiri).

Maybe I am not getting it.  Maybe this is all about skillful means.  But how is it skillful means to say that nirvana is living with a difficult person or touching the moment is truth?  Skillfulness should at least point us in the general direction of Buddhism:  a Buddhism that deals with uncovering a profound mystery which will show us something undying within us that, presently, we are unable to see.

 

The Buddha's idea of a good teacher

In the Gopaka Moggallâna Sutta (M. iii. 7) just after the death of the Buddha, a minister (brahman Vassakara) of King Ajâtusattu Vedehiputta asks Ananda if the Buddha designated a successor.  Ananda replies in the negative.  

However, despite this seeming setback, the Sutta goes on to inform us that there are  qualities the Buddha has taught which make a person worthy to be relied upon.  Here is a smaller and more understandable list of the ten criteria which I have taken from Wendi Adamek’s book, The Mystique of Transmission. 

“These ten qualities are (1) he is perfect in conduct according to the prâtimoksa, (2) he is learned in good teachings, has mastered them verbally, investigated them intellectually and penetrated them through his own insight, (3) he is content with the simple life of the bhiksu, (4) he obtains the four dhyânas (absorptions, higher levels of consciousness) at will, (5) he has mastered the various supernormal powers, (6) he has the “divine ear,” (7) he has insight into the minds of others, (8) he recollects his past lives, (9) he has the “divine eye,” and (10) he has realized the truth for himself and “abides in the deliverance of mind and deliverance by wisdom that are taintless with the destruction of the taints.”

What I find interesting about this list, no latter-day Zen master comes close to these qualities—just read the claptrap they write calling itself Zen.  If somebody asked me to name a past Japanese Zen master who came closest to meeting all the qualities it would have to be Zen master Bassui.  He, unlike, the teachers of today, grasped the notion of pure Mind which is the key to unlocking the mystery of these ten qualities. 

 

Supernormal powers

Bassui Zenji (1327–1387) had a profound way of explaining the six supermnatural powers, all of which derive from our inherent nature or the same, our Buddha-nature.  I have taken the answers to the questions from the book, Mud and Water: The Collected Teachings of Zen Master Bassui, which has been translated by Arthur Braverman. (Yep, it’s a good book to have in your Zen library.)  

What is clairvoyance?

“This infinite light shines of its own accord and watches over all.  It is nothingness; it is a wonder.  It is silent: it illumines.  Though forms can be seen, one is not deluded by them.  This is clairvoyance.”

What is clairaudience?

“Buddha-nature is pure and unstained.  When sounds are heard through the ears, the echo of vibrations is clearly discerned and yet there is no dependence on discriminating thoughts.  This is called clairaudence.”

What is mind-reading?

“When you clearly understand the nature of your own mind, you will realize the oneness of the minds of the buddhas of the three worlds, the ancestors and ordinary people of this world, and heavenly beings of other worlds.  This is the power of mind-reading.”

What is the power of knowing past lives?

“From the moment you realize your inherent nature, your mind will penetrate through aeons of emptiness that preceded creation through to the endless future.  Clear and independent, it will not attach itself to the changing phenomena of life and death, past and future, but will remain constant without obstructing doubts.  This is the power of knowing past lives.”

What is the power to fly through the air?

“When you understand the nature of your own mind, it will thoroughly light up the dark cave of ignorance and the original natural beauty will be manifest.  In an instant you will pass through the ten directions without stopping in the blue sky.  This is your inherent nature’s true power to fly through the air.”

What is the power to stop deluded thoughts?

“When you understand the r of your own mind, delusion will change into wisdom.  Because bodhi is your original inherent nature, it transcends delusion and enlightenment.  You won’t exist among saints and sinners and won’t be stained by the various phenomena.  This is power to stop deluded thoughts.”

One more thing, having gnosis of our true nature which is pure Mind, which is called everything from true nature to Buddha-nature, settles all the mysteries of Buddhism.  However, without this gnosis Buddhism shall forever remain an unsolved mystery.

Buddhism sans Buddhism

What a Buddha is and what a mystic is arguably fall under the category of those who have knowledge and insight into the transcendent or the same, ultimate reality.  And certainly Gautama the Buddha did awaken to the transcendent which was also immortal or amrita.  This, by the way, is another name for nirvana including, the ultimate, the truth, the further shore, the subtle, the stable, the peaceful, the excellent, the good, the security, the wonderful, the marvellous, the purity, the island, the cave, the protection, the refuge, the goal (cp. S. iv. 373).

In his effort to keep the Buddha a profane guy (prthagjana) like himself, Stephen Batchelor, who is the author of Buddhism Without Beliefs, doesn’t want to talk about nirvana.  To do so would undermine his belief that Gautama the Buddha did not awaken to anything transcendent.  Oddly, in his book Buddhism Without Beliefs Batchelor only mentions nirvana twice.  On page 4 he writes: “the Unconditioned,” the Void,” “Nirvana,” “Buddha Nature,” etc.”  On 102 he writes:  “This would be the choice of the mystic who seeks to extinguish himself in God or Nirvana—analogous perhaps to the tendency among artists to obliterate themselves with alcohol or opiates.”  In his entire book, Buddhism Without Beliefs, Batechlor unpacks zero about nrivana, one of the most important terms in Buddhism! 

Let me stop here with this observation about Batchelor.  His book, Buddhism without beliefs, is Buddhism without nirvana which is really Buddhism sans Buddhism.

 

What is the transmission zazen or Mind?

Zazen takes center stage in Dogen’s idea of Zen.  Dogen wants us to believe that when the body sits, instead of standing or lying down, one becomes the Buddha.  This view is taken up by Hein and Wright in their book, Zen Ritual. 

"One of the Shobogenzo essays that focuses on zazen practice is the 1242 "Zazenshin" (The Acupuncture Needle [or Point] of Zazen).  In it Dogen says, 'For studying the way, the established [means of] investigation is pursuit of the way in seated meditation.  The essential point that marks this [investigation] is [the understanding] that there is a practice of a Buddha that does not seek to make a Buddha.  Since the practice of a Buddha is not to make a Buddha, it is the realization of the koan.'  Here, as in many places in his writing, Dogen emphasizes as the 'essential point' that zazen specifically and practice generally are not about seeking some future buddhahood.  Rather, they are already the practice of buddha, realizing with awakened awareness what is crucial in this present situation” (p. 171).

Accordingly, we are to gather that the “Mind to Mind transmission” of Zen really amounts to a kind of “zazen to zazen transmission.”  Dogen writes in Admonitions on Zazen (zazenshin) the following which seems to contravene the Mind to Mind transmission. 

"What has been inherited by successor after successor is just this message of seated meditation; one who does not participate in the unique transmission of this message is not a Buddha or a Patriarch."

I must say, it is hard to take Dogen's words seriously.  I reflect that the works of Bodhidharma never once mention that seated meditation is the unique transmission.  If we look through Zen literature we won't find any such notion as a transmission of seated meditation from "successor after successor.”  This is Dogen's interpretation of what Buddhism is about.  

I need to mention that during the time of the Buddha many yogis also sat in meditation.  It was not uncommon to sit cross-legged for a yogi or rishi.  Where the Buddha's enlightenment differed from those who were his teachers, not to mention other religionists of his time, had nothing to do with seated meditation.  It had everything to do with the degree of mind's apprehension of itself such that in the midst of its distracting phenomena it could detach and penetrate through it returning to itself as pure Mind.  

For the Buddha, Mind no more deluded itself by becoming attached to its own phenomenalizations; being the small 'mind' that transmigrated from one body to the next.  The Buddha, figuratively speaking, crossed over the sea of mind-become-phenomena reaching the far shore of nirvana such that he could fully see the distinction between pure Mind and mind phenomenalized.

 

Dangerous oversimplification

Under Dogen’s view of Buddhism, salvation can be achieved by no means other than by sitting (zazen).  Such sitting only requires of us that we believe that we are already Buddhas.  By sitting properly, such sitting will naturally make our Buddha-ness apparent.

For anyone who has studied the Nikayas and the Mahayana canon Dogen’s sounds incredible.  So where is Dogen coming from?  This might be of help.

“The spirit of the new Kamakura schools is often summarized by the expression "selective" (senjaku) Buddhism.   This term, taken especially from Pure Land theology, refers first to the selection  from a multiplicity of spiritual exercises (shogyô) of one practice for exclusive cultivation (senju).  In Pure Land itself, of course, this practice was the recitation of Amitabha's name (nenbutsu); for Nichiren, it was "discerning the mind" (kanjin), understood now in its esoteric sense as the recitation of the title of the Lotus Sutra (daimoku).  For Dogen, it was just sitting.  In one obvious sense the selection can be seen as a simplification of Buddhism and a reduction of its practice to a single, uncomplicated exercise accessible to all” (Carl Bielefeldt, Dogen's Manuals of Zen Meditation, p. 165).

Bielefeldt, further down the page, observes that such practices, while being easy ways to salvation, were believed to be "the only true ways to express the highest teaching of the one vehicle”!  This, to be sure, is where Dogen and the rest of the Kamakura Buddhists seem to be coming from and where Buddhism starts to get dangerously oversimplified.

 

Totally ridiculous

Yes, some Western Buddhists think this way:  It is really important for me to know whether or not the Buddha actually existed.  If the Buddha didn’t exist in the  past, why should I believe and value his teachings?

I will address this.  But my real intention from this is to show just how ridiculous such a question is.  

Imagine that you’re in the library looking through books when you happen to find this wonderful old book of poems.  Next, you decide to do some checking to see what you can find out about the book’s author.  It happens to be a Russian name.  Well, to make a long story short.  You come up empty.  These poems were published a year before the Communist revolution.  Curiosity then prompts you to seek out the help of a friend who happens to be a Russian student.  He does a major computer search in Russian, trying to find out who the author is.  He comes up empty, also.

Despite coming up empty, this Russian author’s poems are still extraordinary—the most beautiful you’ve ever read.  Stopping here, wouldn’t you be stupid to reject these poems just because you can’t pin down who actually composed them?  Maybe the name was just a  nom de plume—who knows?  At any rate, wisely, you copy down every poem and share them with others.  

In the same way, we might question the value of the Dao De Jing.  For one thing, it is very difficult to say if Laozi/Lao Tzu, which means “Old Master,” is the actual name of Dao De Jing’s author.  But if we follow the crazy mindset of some Western Buddhists, we should reject anything the Dao De Jing says because we don’t know who the real author is!

When you think about it, rejecting something profound like Buddhism or the Dao De Jing on the grounds that there is no way to know if the Buddha or Laozi existed, is totally ridiculous.